Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => Haley Center Basement => Topic started by: GarMan on July 05, 2011, 11:29:39 AM
-
This is hillarious! This judge rocks!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cebdZoKD7UM
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
-
Six days in jail. Talk about bringing the hammer down!! HA!
-
Watching a lot of this case is hitting home for me. I was part of the jury for a murder trial last week in Lee County.
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/2011/06/30/1639341/auburn-man-guilty-of-murder-could.html (http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/2011/06/30/1639341/auburn-man-guilty-of-murder-could.html)
I can imagine what is going through the Jury members' minds right now having just done this. The "he said, she said" and both sides having conflicting accounts of what happened. You really have to weed through a lot of the bullshit and smoke/mirrors and use common sense in this type of case. In the end, they are going to have to ask themselves one thing: is there any reasonable doubt she did this? That's what it really comes down to.
-
The defense really jacked up her chances of reasonable doubt by letting the mom lie on the stand that she (the mom) was the one who did the chloroform searches. That old lawyer rule about never asking a question you don't know the answer to has a corrollary that you should never let one of your own witnesses tell a story you yourself have not tried to poke holes into - aka, Everybody Lies. How hard was it for the prosecution to prove the mom was physically at work when those searches were done on the home computer? Easy peasy. So before, it could have been Casey or her mom or her dad who did 85 searches... which is legitimate reasonable doubt. But now, by having the mom officially ruled out AND proven to be a liar, and the dad probably ruled out as well, the whole "see, anyone had access" argument is shot to hell.
Slick move, guys... :facepalm:
-
Its better to stay quiet and have them wonder rather than open your mouth and remove all doubt.
-
My wife has been watching this for a while and has infected me with it. While taking breaks from being dragged around Orlando by the kids, I want to drink a beer and chill. The only problem is the only fucking thing on TV is this trial. I wish this jury would just go ahead and hang her ass and get it over with.
-
My wife has been watching this for a while and has infected me with it. While taking breaks from being dragged around Orlando by the kids, I want to drink a beer and chill. The only problem is the only fucking thing on TV is this trial. I wish this jury would just go ahead and hang her ass and get it over with.
I wish the jury had that power. Believe me.
-
I wish the jury had that power. Believe me.
I would love to kick her in the face before she went to dangling from a rope.
-
She was found not guilty of everything but lying to the cops/filing a false report.
Obviously California does not have a corner on the market on stupid fucktards on juries.
UNREAL.
Normal people do not report their baby missing if they died "accidentally". Normal people do not hide their baby's body in a sack in some bushes. Normal people don't go party on South Beach when they lose a child.
-
She was found not guilty of everything but lying to the cops/filing a false report.
Obviously California does not have a corner on the market on stupid fucktards on juries.
UNREAL.
Normal people do not report their baby missing if they died "accidentally". Normal people do not hide their baby's body in a sack in some bushes. Normal people don't go party on South Beach when they lose a child.
I agree with all of the above. Problem is most people know in their heart what most likely happened but that's not what a jury is supposed to use to make their determination. Happens with Heisman trophy winning QB's too.
I followed this case with a passing interest and read and heard enough to believe this was the more likely outcome. Way too many unanswered questions.
-
I agree with all of the above. Problem is most people know in their heart what most likely happened but that's not what a jury is supposed to use to make their determination. Happens with Heisman trophy winning QB's too.
I followed this case with a passing interest and read and heard enough to believe this was the more likely outcome. Way too many unanswered questions.
That's it in a nutshell. You can't get a Capital Murder conviction on supposition supported with evidence of general bad character.
-
I will concede capital murder, as there was no way to prove premeditation, other than the 85 internet searches for choloroform. But I cannot figure out how she was not convicted of manslaughter. That baby died on HER WATCH. If it was accidental, say so.
-
I will concede capital murder, as there was no way to prove premeditation, other than the 85 internet searches for choloroform. But I cannot figure out how she was not convicted of manslaughter. That baby died on HER WATCH. If it was accidental, say so.
That's just it. Based on what little attention I gave to this mess, there still seemed to be more than enough evidence to prove that she was involved to some degree with the murder, the death and/or the cover-up. Perhaps, they could have charged her with lessor crimes to secure the convictions.
-
That's just it. Based on what little attention I gave to this mess, there still seemed to be more than enough evidence to prove that she was involved to some degree with the murder, the death and/or the cover-up. Perhaps, they could have charged her with lessor crimes to secure the convictions.
She was charged with lesser crimes. She was charged with aggravated child abuse and aggravated manslaughter. Still not enough evidence to hang her.
Also, JR correct me if I'm wrong, but the first degree murder charge also had lesser included charges (felony murder and one other, I think).
-
She was charged with lesser crimes. She was charged with aggravated child abuse and aggravated manslaughter. Still not enough evidence to hang her.
Also, JR correct me if I'm wrong, but the first degree murder charge also had lesser included charges (felony murder and one other, I think).
Yes and were instructed that they could consider them. No evidence.
-
She was charged with lesser crimes. She was charged with aggravated child abuse and aggravated manslaughter. Still not enough evidence to hang her.
Also, JR correct me if I'm wrong, but the first degree murder charge also had lesser included charges (felony murder and one other, I think).
I remember hearing that as well, but it still seems that she could have been charged with even lessor crimes that the evidence more directly supported. It was clear from what little I heard that she was involved in the mischief, especially the cover-up of a death. I do understand the reasonable doubt assocated with charges of murder, child abuse or manslaughter.
-
She was charged with lesser crimes. She was charged with aggravated child abuse and aggravated manslaughter. Still not enough evidence to hang her.
Also, JR correct me if I'm wrong, but the first degree murder charge also had lesser included charges (felony murder and one other, I think).
Because they believe the defense's cockmaney theory that George Anthony drowned her in a pool and tossed her in Casey's trunk before throwing her in a swamp. With no evidence of course. Sounds plausible to me.
-
Because they believe the defense's cockmaney theory that George Anthony drowned her in a pool and tossed her in Casey's trunk before throwing her in a swamp. With no evidence of course. Sounds plausible to me.
IHO, it was a combo of being over charged, and lack of evidence. They won in spite of the bs, not because of it.
-
IHO, it was a combo of being over charged, and lack of evidence. They won in spite of the bs, not because of it.
Won?
There are no winners here.
No matter what actually happened -- accidental drowning (bullshit) or purposeful murder (yep) -- that sick ass diseased family conspired to destroy evidence, cover up the event and callously discard the body of an innocent child. And then resume partying.
Fuck them all.
I would not lose one second of sleep if I was presented the opportunity and gunned them down. All of them. The lying mother, the greasy father and the party whore. In fact, I hope somebody does have the decency and humanity to wipe that entire family from the face of the earth. I'd celebrate it.
-
Won?
There are no winners here.
No matter what actually happened -- accidental drowning (bullshit) or purposeful murder (yep) -- that sick ass diseased family conspired to destroy evidence, cover up the event and callously discard the body of an innocent child. And then resume partying.
Fuck them all.
I would not lose one second of sleep if I was presented the opportunity and gunned them down. All of them. The lying mother, the greasy father and the party whore. In fact, I hope somebody does have the decency and humanity to wipe that entire family from the face of the earth. I'd celebrate it.
Whatever...
-
Whatever...
Which part do you disagree with?
Did the mother party like a rock star in the days after her daughter's death (a death she was clearly aware of)?
Did her greaseball mother and father both have knowledge of the death of the child?
Did they all lie to the police?
Did they all conspire to cover up the murder?
Did the parents stand quietly by while their daughter fed misinformation to the police and media?
Which of that is untrue? Which is the behavior to be commended? Who won?
I'd like to kill a lot of people. They just moved up the list. I'd laugh if they died in a burning building. I'd be happy if a mountain lion got in their house and mauled them to death. I'd snicker of a swarm of african bees stung them all to death.
-
Which part do you disagree with?
Did the mother party like a rock star in the days after her daughter's death (a death she was clearly aware of)?
Did her greaseball mother and father both have knowledge of the death of the child?
Did they all lie to the police?
Did they all conspire to cover up the murder?
Did the parents stand quietly by while their daughter fed misinformation to the police and media?
Which of that is untrue? Which is the behavior to be commended? Who won?
I'd like to kill a lot of people. They just moved up the list. I'd laugh if they died in a burning building. I'd be happy if a mountain lion got in their house and mauled them to death. I'd snicker of a swarm of african bees stung them all to death.
Sitting in a capital murder seminar posting from my phone...too much detail to type now.
-
Sitting in a capital murder seminar posting from my phone...too much detail to type now.
Irony.
-
Irony.
Between the conference, and the weather here in Orange Beach, I doubt I'll take much more time to hash this out. You can read my previous posts and figure out where I stand. Short version...they proved she's a first class, lying, skank, narcisist. They proved to my satisfaction, and the jury's, a coverup. They didn't have one shred of proof of murder, other than the inferences (see case against Cam Newton already referenced) back from her behavior post missing/dead. That doesn't prove murder, and no way in hell you can KNOW she murdered her. If you believe you KNOW that...more power to you. Everybody has an opinion. Can't disagree with your take on the family as a whole either. All of them big time fucked up.
-
I remember hearing that as well, but it still seems that she could have been charged with even lessor crimes that the evidence more directly supported. It was clear from what little I heard that she was involved in the mischief, especially the cover-up of a death. I do understand the reasonable doubt assocated with charges of murder, child abuse or manslaughter.
Um...they did charge and convict here of a misdemeanor... What's left...charge her with a traffic violation?
Also, Kaos, I find it funny how you know without a shadow of a doubt that she did this...without seeing all the evidence or actually being there. If the prosecution did their job and the case was as open and shit as you think it is, then we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.
-
Um...they did charge and convict here of a misdemeanor... What's left...charge her with a traffic violation?
That was four misdemeanors for providing false information, but who's counting... So, if I hide your body for a month before reporting you missing to the police, what sort of charges should I be concerned about?
-
That was four misdemeanors for providing false information, but who's counting... So, if I hide your body for a month before reporting you missing to the police, what sort of charges should I be concerned about?
Well, knowing you, sodomy and rape would be two felonies I'd worry about.
-
Well, knowing you, sodomy and rape would be two felonies I'd worry about.
Can you have the requisite intent to sodomize and rape someone if you're asleep?
-
Well, knowing you, sodomy and rape would be two felonies I'd worry about.
Is that all? Any evidence of that would be long gone by the time they found you.
-
Is that all? Any evidence of that would be long gone by the time they found you.
That's why I like you, you clean up.
Can you have the requisite intent to sodomize and rape someone if you're asleep?
Sleep rape, the new Goat AIDS.
-
That's why I like you, you clean up.
That... And, the fact that I keep 7-8 bags of lime in reserve. You never know when you'll need it.
-
Sleep rape, the new Goat AIDS.
Hey let's call it what it is....surprise sex.
-
Can you have the requisite intent to sodomize and rape someone if you're asleep?
You can't respond with "No" when you're asleep, and the duct tape will keep you from talking when/if you wake up. So, it's not rape.
-
You can't respond with "No" when you're asleep, and the duct tape will keep you from talking when/if you wake up. So, it's not rape.
Especially if it's your dog.
-
Especially if it's your dog.
Or goat
-
I don't know if she killed the kid or didn't. My opinion based on her response is that she is a sociopath and has no feeling for anything or anyone other than herself. The rest of the world is judged and used/discarded based solely on it's benefit to her at that moment. Incapable of remorse.
The desire to see her exterminated stems from that.
She knew her child was dead. At best she was complicit in the cover up.
Prosecution fouled up by not getting the evidence down
-
You can't respond with "No" when you're asleep, and the duct tape will keep you from talking when/if you wake up. So, it's not rape.
No, not the rape victim...the rapist. We were talking about you sodomizing AWK, afterall...
-
No, not the rape victim...the rapist. We were talking about you sodomizing AWK, afterall...
Oh... Well since we're talking AWK, there's little chance that he'd ever be a victim in that situation. A willing participant... but, not a victim.
-
I don't know if she killed the kid or didn't. My opinion based on her response is that she is a sociopath and has no feeling for anything or anyone other than herself. The rest of the world is judged and used/discarded based solely on it's benefit to her at that moment. Incapable of remorse.
The desire to see her exterminated stems from that.
She knew her child was dead. At best she was complicit in the cover up.
Prosecution fouled up by not getting the evidence down
I knew you really got it. That said, sometimes there's just not any evidence, but you got it.
-
I knew you really got it. That said, sometimes there's just not any evidence, but you got it.
A guy on the Bunker that posts as Eagle5 really nailed how I feel about it:
I guess I'm too much of a "lay person" as the Boonker lawyers (whom I respect as it's clear most are very accomplished at their craft) dub us commoners. I possess the same qualifications as jurors (well, ...) who decide the fate of a fellow citizen accused of criminal charges, and it seems to me that "reasonable" has been "dumbed up" about 30-40% too high out of an irrational fear of an innocent being sentenced to life or executed. I'm not so sure it isn't a back door way of ending capital punishment except in the most heinous cases which society won't tolerate.
If abolishing capital punishment would level the field between prosecution and defense in Murder 1 trials, much as it pains me, I'd have to consider it.
It's a powerful argument, guarding against the taking of an innocent life. But when you see guilty murderers walk like O. J. and I believe Casey Anthony, it screams for reappraisal of prosecutors' tactics, risk/reward decisions on which cases or specific charges to bring, rules of evidence, venue of the trial, judges' management of cases, or jurors' competence or manipulability with the modern-day use of juror consultants, for starters.
Yes, I am saying that some jurors may just be too dim-witted, lazy, manipulable, or biased to render verdicts based on complex evidence. And remember - that cuts both ways - if you have a less attractive looking, young defendant than Casey Anthony with her life all before her, jurors may be manipulated the other direction. This jury didn't bother to review scientific evidence, reaching the not-guilty verdict in the time it takes to woof down a Big Mac.
Some here who had no problem with the verdict yesterday based on the standards of proof in a Murder 1 trial argue simply that the prosecution did not prove cause of death, motive, or guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It's a fair argument, and obviously 12 jurors bought it with the defense's clever mix of sympathy tactics (Casey's Dad and brother touched her as a young girl), mud thrown at the wall to confuse, and lack of CSI level forensics that were just the reality of the prosecution's case.
Yet the same jurors could not toss out the evidence that CA lied and misrepresented facts to the police. Am I the only one who finds that to be jury compartmentalization of facts? And the jury appears to have found as "reasonable" a theory that Caylee died accidentally, drowning in the pool.
So I'm left thinking, in what alternate universe does this jury live in which a supposedly loving Mom binds her accidentally drowned child with masking tape, shoves her in a sack, dumps her in a swamp, and doesn't report it for 30 days? Now where did the notion of "reasonable" go in that assessment?
I could stomach the jury's result far better if they concluded Murder 1 was not proven, but yet found CA "guilty" on the lesser charges of aggravated abuse and aggravated manslaughter. Scratching my head on that one, and reportedly, even the defense expected that sort of outcome.
-
A guy on the Bunker that posts as Eagle5 really nailed how I feel about it:
I could stomach the jury's result far better if they concluded Murder 1 was not proven, but yet found CA "guilty" on the lesser charges of aggravated abuse and aggravated manslaughter. Scratching my head on that one, and reportedly, even the defense expected that sort of outcome.
Bolded above is what I am stuck on. They didn't believe she was responsible in ANY way. Not intentional, not accidental, not negligent...NOTHING. But somehow think her dad/mom did it AND covered it up, although there was NO evidence. Makes NO FUCKING SENSE.
-
Any lawyers here think jury instructions may have affected the verdict?
-
Any lawyers here think jury instructions may have affected the verdict?
They always should.
-
They always should.
I should have been more specific.
Do you think jury instructions caused the jury to declare her innocent contrary to the evidence provided?
In other words, was the evidence there to convict her but the prosecution did too much of a shitty job to get the verdict?
-
Any lawyers here think jury instructions may have affected the verdict?
Not really. No DNA on the duct tape, no DNA from blood in the trunk, only witness testimony regarding a smell in the trunk vs. an expert on bodily decomposition saying that a body could not have decomposed in the trunk, no cause of death...murder is just impossible to get on that evidence.
Manslaughter? You still have to prove she caused the death, and when you can't even prove that she was around the body before or after it started decomposing, then there's definitely reasonable doubt for manslaughter.
Negligence? Well, sure, if we know what caused the death of the child and can show that someone's negligence led to her death, but we don't even have a cause of death, much less any evidence showing that anyone's negligence caused the death.
Abuse? Again, no evidence. Caylee was alive one day, and was found as a decomposing body the next. No DNA links Casey to her body. Forensic evidence and testimony gives different accounts as to whether Caylee's body was ever in Casey's trunk, and even if it were, there is no evidence showing who put her there.
It simply boils down to there not being enough evidence to rid the average person of reasonable doubt.
-
I just can't wrap my head around the fact why someone would take an accidental drowning and make it look like a murder. That shit just doesn't jive, thats common sense.
-
Not really. No DNA on the duct tape, no DNA from blood in the trunk, only witness testimony regarding a smell in the trunk vs. an expert on bodily decomposition saying that a body could not have decomposed in the trunk, no cause of death...murder is just impossible to get on that evidence.
Manslaughter? You still have to prove she caused the death, and when you can't even prove that she was around the body before or after it started decomposing, then there's definitely reasonable doubt for manslaughter.
Negligence? Well, sure, if we know what caused the death of the child and can show that someone's negligence led to her death, but we don't even have a cause of death, much less any evidence showing that anyone's negligence caused the death.
Abuse? Again, no evidence. Caylee was alive one day, and was found as a decomposing body the next. No DNA links Casey to her body. Forensic evidence and testimony gives different accounts as to whether Caylee's body was ever in Casey's trunk, and even if it were, there is no evidence showing who put her there.
It simply boils down to there not being enough evidence to rid the average person of reasonable doubt.
This guy gets it!
-
Not really. No DNA on the duct tape, no DNA from blood in the trunk, only witness testimony regarding a smell in the trunk vs. an expert on bodily decomposition saying that a body could not have decomposed in the trunk, no cause of death...murder is just impossible to get on that evidence.
Manslaughter? You still have to prove she caused the death, and when you can't even prove that she was around the body before or after it started decomposing, then there's definitely reasonable doubt for manslaughter.
Negligence? Well, sure, if we know what caused the death of the child and can show that someone's negligence led to her death, but we don't even have a cause of death, much less any evidence showing that anyone's negligence caused the death.
Abuse? Again, no evidence. Caylee was alive one day, and was found as a decomposing body the next. No DNA links Casey to her body. Forensic evidence and testimony gives different accounts as to whether Caylee's body was ever in Casey's trunk, and even if it were, there is no evidence showing who put her there.
It simply boils down to there not being enough evidence to rid the average person of reasonable doubt.
Sometimes I wish I had decided to go to law school.
I really haven't kept up with this case. I'm just confused why everyone seems to be so bent out of shape about it. I know Nancy Grace told everyone Casey Anthony was guilty, but it seems like the actual case had very little substance to prove she did it.
-
I just can't wrap my head around the fact why someone would take an accidental drowning and make it look like a murder. That shit just doesn't jive, thats common sense.
Is that evidence of MURDER to you? In and of itself, with NOTHING to point directly to murder...NOTHING, no cause or manner of death, no crime scene, no murder weapon, nothing...just an idiot...and she's been proved to be an idiot, whore, skank, liar...an idiot doing something idiotic, THAT alone rises to the level of proving that SHE, Intended to cause the death, and did, in fact cause the death of that child?
-
Sometimes I wish I had decided to go to law school.
I really haven't kept up with this case. I'm just confused why everyone seems to be so bent out of shape about it. I know Nancy Grace told everyone Casey Anthony was guilty, but it seems like the actual case had very little substance to prove she did it.
Id like to take a shovel and knock Nancy's mushroom hairdo in to another zip code.
-
Id like to take a shovel and knock Nancy's mushroom hairdo in to another zip code.
Hey remember that time when Natalee Holloway was missing and Nancy Grace picked up her phone to personally call the Aruba investigator and get some answers and she just sat there for a few moments acting like the phone was actually ringing and then went on a rant about how he was ignoring her calls and wasn't concerned for actually finding Natalee Holloway because he saw her number on his caller ID and ignored it?
Yeah I remember that.
-
Nancy Grace makes me want to rip the legs off newborn kittens.
-
Negligence? Well, sure, if we know what caused the death of the child and can show that someone's negligence led to her death, but we don't even have a cause of death, much less any evidence showing that anyone's negligence caused the death.
I understand what you are saying on everything, but this. We know as facts that she waited 30 days before contacting authorities that her (2 year old) daughter was missing. That right there constitutes negligence. Even if she was kidnapped and killed by someone else, why did she wait so long to contact authorities? We are talking about a 2 yr old not a 16 yr old who could have run away.
-
Is that evidence of MURDER to you? In and of itself, with NOTHING to point directly to murder...NOTHING, no cause or manner of death, no crime scene, no murder weapon, nothing...just an idiot...and she's been proved to be an idiot, whore, skank, liar...an idiot doing something idiotic, THAT alone rises to the level of proving that SHE, Intended to cause the death, and did, in fact cause the death of that child?
She didn't give a damn it was dead, lied about it repeatedly and then partied her ugly ass off.
Soc-EOO-path. Gonna not give a damn the next time somebody dies around her either.
Somebody duct taped that child. Somebody discarded it like a used condom.
Reckon who that was? The person who lied about knowing where the body was when she, in fact, knew the baby was dead and discarded? Surely not. My God, that's unbelievable. Who could possibly think that the person who knew where the baby's body was would have had anything at all to do with its death or disposal? Why that doesn't make sense. It's more rational to believe that Megatron killed the baby because he was mad at Optimus.
Fuck.
:sad:
-
She didn't give a damn it was dead, lied about it repeatedly and then partied her ugly ass off.
Soc-EOO-path. Gonna not give a damn the next time somebody dies around her either.
Somebody duct taped that child. Somebody discarded it like a used condom.
Reckon who that was? The person who lied about knowing where the body was when she, in fact, knew the baby was dead and discarded? Surely not. My God, that's unbelievable. Who could possibly think that the person who knew where the baby's body was would have had anything at all to do with its death or disposal? Why that doesn't make sense. It's more rational to believe that Megatron killed the baby because he was mad at Optimus.
Fuck.
:sad:
I heard Megatron had an Alibi, Starscream backed him up.
-
Is that evidence of MURDER to you? In and of itself, with NOTHING to point directly to murder...NOTHING, no cause or manner of death, no crime scene, no murder weapon, nothing...just an idiot...and she's been proved to be an idiot, whore, skank, liar...an idiot doing something idiotic, THAT alone rises to the level of proving that SHE, Intended to cause the death, and did, in fact cause the death of that child?
Well it sure as hell doesn't make a lick fucking sense. So, why would someone make an accidental drowning look like a murder? No there is no proof obviously for a jury but somebody sure as hell killed that little girl and common fucking sense said Casey Anthony did it.
-
I understand what you are saying on everything, but this. We know as facts that she waited 30 days before contacting authorities that her (2 year old) daughter was missing. That right there constitutes negligence. Even if she was kidnapped and killed by someone else, why did she wait so long to contact authorities? We are talking about a 2 yr old not a 16 yr old who could have run away.
She didn't give a damn it was dead, lied about it repeatedly and then partied her ugly ass off.
Soc-EOO-path. Gonna not give a damn the next time somebody dies around her either.
Somebody duct taped that child. Somebody discarded it like a used condom.
Reckon who that was? The person who lied about knowing where the body was when she, in fact, knew the baby was dead and discarded? Surely not. My God, that's unbelievable. Who could possibly think that the person who knew where the baby's body was would have had anything at all to do with its death or disposal? Why that doesn't make sense. It's more rational to believe that Megatron killed the baby because he was mad at Optimus.
Fuck.
:sad:
She's one fucked up unit. The only way to get to INTENTIONAL MURDER in this case is through sheer inference and supposition.
The prosecution probably could have gotten a conviction on something lesser than Capital Murder had they tried to "infer" that the child drowned due to negligent supervision while mom smoked crack and fucked 4 guys.
-
Well it sure as hell doesn't make a lick fucking sense. So, why would someone make an accidental drowning look like a murder? No there is no proof obviously for a jury but somebody sure as hell killed that little girl and common fucking sense said Casey Anthony did it.
See...you've jumped to a conclusion...there's no proof anybody intentionally killed her.
-
See...you've jumped to a conclusion...there's no proof anybody intentionally killed her.
Are you serious? You still haven't answered my question.
-
Are you serious? You still haven't answered my question.
Burial rites.
She's going to get hit for mistreating a dead body.
But no logical or sufficient answer is going to be found for your question. Because she's a lunatic.
-
Burial rites.
She's going to get hit for mistreating a dead body.
But no logical or sufficient answer is going to be found for your question. Because she's a lunatic.
So, since a person that supposedly loves there child, has the child drown and then stores the child for a month and then buries the child in a fucking pet cemetery while the whole world is looking for her? All the while she is in jail saying she doesn't know where the little child is?
-
Are you serious? You still haven't answered my question.
Your question supposes a fact that wasn't proved. Answering it is pointless.
So, since a person that supposedly loves there child, has the child drown and then stores the child for a month and then buries the child in a fucking pet cemetery while the whole world is looking for her? All the while she is in jail saying she doesn't know where the little child is?
If that proves she intentionally killed the child in your mind...then so be it.
-
Your question supposes a fact that wasn't proved. Answering it is pointless.
If that proves she intentionally killed the child in your mind...then so be it.
So its a natural thing for a family that loves a child to bury this child in the fucking woods after an accident?
How is it pointless when the fact she was discarded in such a manner. This is a fact not opinion.
-
So, since a person that supposedly loves there child, has the child drown and then stores the child for a month and then buries the child in a fucking pet cemetery while the whole world is looking for her? All the while she is in jail saying she doesn't know where the little child is?
It's a screwed up case.
But take away the emotions in a hypothetical:
My neighbor goes missing for 30 days. I report him missing on the 30th day. He's found decomposed in the woods with duct tape across his face.
I then admit that I found his dead body in his house and took him to the woods because I freaked out and didn't know what to do about it.
There's absolutely no evidence linking me to killing the guy. No weapon. No time frame of when I could have been there to kill him. No witnesses. Nothing. Even more so, there's nothing on the guy to show that he was killed besides duct tape that I admitted to putting on him because I was in a freak out mode when I found him.
All I did wrong was mistreating the dead body.
Should I go to jail for capital murder?
Let's say I didn't do it.
Because I didn't treat the body correctly, it should be assumed that I killed him?
Let's say I then throw big parties at his house because he has an awesome party house.
Does that really affect the verdict?
The emotions of this being her daughter and her really not giving a shit is what's affecting public opinion.
-
It's a screwed up case.
But take away the emotions in a hypothetical:
My neighbor goes missing for 30 days. I report him missing on the 30th day. He's found decomposed in the woods with duct tape across his face.
I then admit that I found his dead body in his house and took him to the woods because I freaked out and didn't know what to do about it.
There's absolutely no evidence linking me to killing the guy. No weapon. No time frame of when I could have been there to kill him. No witnesses. Nothing. Even more so, there's nothing on the guy to show that he was killed besides duct tape that I admitted to putting on him because I was in a freak out mode when I found him.
All I did wrong was mistreating the dead body.
Should I go to jail for capital murder?
Let's say I didn't do it.
Because I didn't treat the body correctly, it should be assumed that I killed him?
Let's say I then throw big parties at his house because he has an awesome party house.
Does that really affect the verdict?
The emotions of this being her daughter and her really not giving a shit is what's affecting public opinion.
I get all that. Negligence should have still been a charge though, not in the case you stated above, because you are a neighbor and not responsible for his well being. However, a parent is responsible for a child's well being at all times. How she was not found negligent is beyond me.
-
So its a natural thing for a family that loves a child to bury this child in the fucking woods after an accident?
How is it pointless when the fact she was discarded in such a manner. This is a fact not opinion.
Auburn paid Cam because his dad asked state for cash...fact.
That's supposition woking forward from a known fact...you're working back...same flawed logic.
-
Auburn paid Cam because his dad asked state for cash...fact.
That's supposition woking forward from a known fact...you're working back...same flawed logic.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_zMBFmRhl7Gw/TKMtQXjLdAI/AAAAAAAAA3k/QtirnPqbOdY/s320/wok+with+handle-769062.jpg)?
-
I understand what you and JR are saying THS but I'm talking about common sense here. Besides, the case we are referring to is not as cut and dry as the one you mentioned but even then its apparent someone murdered the victim. Now then, if you would have said that the guy tripped on a rake, fell and hit his head on a rock after 30 days of this person disappeared would have been more like it. And, not to mention you buried the guy in your trash pile all the while saying you have no clue what the hell happened to this guy.
This is all common sense. I also know that common sense has no place in the court room if there is no evidence.
Here is the deal; the Prosecution and Counsel did a hell of a job. Its not a flawless court system but shit happens sometimes. Just ask OJ Simpson.
-
Auburn paid Cam because his dad asked state for cash...fact.
That's supposition woking forward from a known fact...you're working back...same flawed logic.
Then you have totally whiffed at my post.
-
I understand what you are saying on everything, but this. We know as facts that she waited 30 days before contacting authorities that her (2 year old) daughter was missing. That right there constitutes negligence. Even if she was kidnapped and killed by someone else, why did she wait so long to contact authorities? We are talking about a 2 yr old not a 16 yr old who could have run away.
Well, I was referring more to criminal negligence which caused the death of another. Now, if the argument is that she was negligent in looking for her child, that's definitely possible, but I think it would depend upon the state's wording of their negligence laws. Federally, there is a minimum requirement that each state define child neglect as the failure of a parent or other person with responsibility for the child to provide needed food, clothing, shelter, medical care, or supervision such that the child's health, safety, and well-being are threatened with harm.
If your child is abducted or otherwise missing, then you can't be expected to provide supervision. If your lack of supervision led to their abduction/absence, then sure, you can be found guilty of child neglect, but I'm not sure that the mere refusal to report your child missing is necessarily neglect. Again, it would just depend upon the wording of state law regarding child neglect.
-
Well, I was referring more to criminal negligence which caused the death of another. Now, if the argument is that she was negligent in looking for her child, that's definitely possible, but I think it would depend upon the state's wording of their negligence laws. Federally, there is a minimum requirement that each state define child neglect as the failure of a parent or other person with responsibility for the child to provide needed food, clothing, shelter, medical care, or supervision such that the child's health, safety, and well-being are threatened with harm.
If your child is abducted or otherwise missing, then you can't be expected to provide supervision. If your lack of supervision led to their abduction/absence, then sure, you can be found guilty of child neglect, but I'm not sure that the mere refusal to report your child missing is necessarily neglect. Again, it would just depend upon the wording of state law regarding child neglect.
Seriously? So I can just leave Katie at Target next time she pisses me off and walk away? Good to know...
The refusal to report a 16 year old missing is one thing. The refusal to report a 2 year old missing is a whole 'nother ballgame. A two year old does not know her phone number, her parent's real name, her address, anything. She is completely dependent on the parent for everything. Whether or not this is neglect should not even be a point of discussion.
if she did not report the child missing, she knew she was dead. No other logical explanation. There should be no proof required. If she knew she was dead, then either she did it, or knew who did. AS THAT BABY'S PARENT, she should be held accountable.
-
This is when posses should handle justice, especially when our legal system is given an opportunity and fails. Just sayin'...
And, yes. I am advocating someone removing her from society.
-
This is when posses should handle justice, especially when our legal system is given an opportunity and fails. Just sayin'...
And, yes. I am advocating someone removing her from society.
Nice, lynch mobs.
-
Nice, lynch mobs.
However you want to characterize it to make you feel better, SpunkMonkey.
-
However you want to characterize it to make you feel better, SpunkMonkey.
Yeah, AWK, only beta males believe in due process.
-
Yeah, AWK, only beta males believe in due process.
Back to defending your gurlz again? He's a big boy. I'm sure that he can handle it without you.
Your beloved due process failed. Don't get me wrong. I support it, but I don't trust it unconditionally.
-
Back to defending your gurlz again? He's a big boy. I'm sure that he can handle it without you.
Not defending, just having fun.
Your beloved due process failed. Don't get me wrong. I support it, but I don't trust it unconditionally.
As long as there is a human element it remains fallible. It remains, however, the best system on the planet.
-
Not defending, just having fun.
Well, if he was my bitch...
As long as there is a human element it remains fallible. It remains, however, the best system on the planet.
Exactly... And, I do agree.
-
Seriously? So I can just leave Katie at Target next time she pisses me off and walk away? Good to know...
If you leave your kid at Target, that is negligent supervision. Your kid wasn't abducted; you left it somewhere that you took it out of negligence. That's entirely different than your child ending up missing and you not reporting it to the police.
The refusal to report a 16 year old missing is one thing. The refusal to report a 2 year old missing is a whole 'nother ballgame. A two year old does not know her phone number, her parent's real name, her address, anything. She is completely dependent on the parent for everything. Whether or not this is neglect should not even be a point of discussion.
It depends upon the state's laws. The federal laws create a minimum standard that states must meet. Within those federal standards, nothing suggests that not reporting your child as missing to the authorities is negligent. There may or may not be state laws which classify that as negligence. But if there isn't a state law which says as much, then it's not negligent to fail to report your child as missing.
if she did not report the child missing, she knew she was dead. No other logical explanation. There should be no proof required. If she knew she was dead, then either she did it, or knew who did. AS THAT BABY'S PARENT, she should be held accountable.
In a statement, she claimed that the child was with another person. She named the person, and did not understand why that person wouldn't bring her child back or tell her where she was.
Now, I'm not saying that her statement is true. But, again, without evidence to the contrary, it's hard to convict someone.
-
She MADE UP a person.
If I said Sasquatch borrowed my car and drove it all over your landscaping are you saying I should skate on the charges because you can't prove Sasquatch DIDNT do it?
That's beyond ignorant.
-
:homo: :homo: :homo: :homo:
However you want to characterize it to make you feel better, SpunkMonkey.
:homo:
-
Another question for the lawyers -
If the prosecution hadn't pushed the death penalty, are we looking at a guilty verdict?
BALTIMORE -- Maryland has changed the way it deals with the death penalty in recent years, and a local attorney said the Casey Anthony verdict helps explain why.
A jury in Florida on Tuesday found 25-year-old Casey Anthony not guilty of first-degree murder, aggravated child abuse and aggravated manslaughter in the death of her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee, in 2008.
Prosecutors in the case failed to show evidence that would have created a direct link between the defendant and her daughter's death, which is crucial information that's needed to apply the death penalty in Maryland, according to criminal litigator Andrew White, who followed the Anthony trial.
"I think the lesson is don't ask for the ultimate penalty if you don't have the ultimate proof," he said. "In this case here, the fact that they came back so quickly with a not guilty (verdict) shows that the prosecutor missed something."
White said that something could have been showing the jury any conclusive evidence, such as DNA or a confession, that would have linked Anthony to her daughter's death.
He said the verdict reaffirms Maryland's decision to put stricter limits on its death penalty cases.
"Frankly, this is good evidence of why Maryland recently just changed its law in a death case to say you can't prosecute a person for the ultimate crime without DNA or a videotaped confession or some other evidence directly linking the person to the crime," White said.
Read more: http://www.wbaltv.com/news/28459571/detail.html#ixzz1RNjGgEOA
-
Casey Anthony Juror: 'I Did Not Say She Was Innocent'
By Amber Goodhand - Radar Reporter
The first juror from the Casey Anthony trial has broken their silence.
We now know that juror number 3 is Jennifer Ford, and she says that acquitting Anthony of the murder charges of her two-year-old daughter Caylee in no way means that she believes Anthony is innocent.
"I did not say she was innocent," Ford said in an interview with ABC News. "I just said there was not enough evidence. If you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be."
The stunning verdict was delivered Tuesday when the jury of 12 found Anthony, 25, not guilty on charges of first-degree murder, aggravated manslaughter and aggravated child abuse.
"Everyone wonders why we didn't speak to the media right away," Ford said. "It was because we were sick to our stomach to get that verdict. We were crying and not just the women. It was emotional and we weren't ready. We wanted to do it with integrity and not contribute to the sensationalism of the trial."
But despite the emotional toll this trial took on the jury, Ford said they tried to stay positive.
"They picked a great bunch of people, such high integrity," Ford said. "And there was high morale. We all joked. We are like a big group of cousins."
While there's been controversy over Anthony's acquittal, she was found guilty on four counts of lying to law enforcement officers but is expected to be released following her sentencing on Thursday as she's already served nearly three years behind bars.
Ford's full interview will air Wednesday night on ABC World News with Diane Sawyer and ABC's Primetime Nightline.
-
Another question for the lawyers -
If the prosecution hadn't pushed the death penalty, are we looking at a guilty verdict?
I say yes.
-
She MADE UP a person.
If I said Sasquatch borrowed my car and drove it all over your landscaping are you saying I should skate on the charges because you can't prove Sasquatch DIDNT do it?
That's beyond ignorant.
Sasquatch is a tad bit of a hyperbole. Now Steve? That's possible. And when there's no evidence to suggest that you, instead of Steve, did something with your car? Then yes, that is what we call "reasonable doubt."
Unless, of course, your fingerprints and DNA are all over the car, you don't have an alibi, and eye witnesses place you as the driver of the car. But, when there's no DNA, no eye witnesses, and no cause of death, you can't go convicting people of murder. Or manslaughter. Or criminal negligence that resulted in someone's death. It just doesn't work that way.
What's ignorant is wanting to convict someone of murder because they partied while their child was missing. You don't agree with her actions that she makes in the wake of her child's disappearance? Awesome, but that doesn't affect the fact that there wasn't enough evidence to convict her of murder or manslaughter. You think she's a big skankopotamus with no conscience? Great for you, but that's not evidence of her being the cause of her daughter's death.
-
Another question for the lawyers -
If the prosecution hadn't pushed the death penalty, are we looking at a guilty verdict?
I say no, at least ideally. If the jury made their decision based upon the possible punishment, and not the evidence, then their decision was improper.
But, having looked at the evidence (and I will admit that I did not watch the entire trial, but that I've followed it via the news), the ultimate decision of not guilty was the most reasonable choice. There simply wasn't enough evidence to convict her of what she was charged. You can't say, "Oh, well, she'll only spend 10 years in prison, so even though I have reasonable doubt based upon the evidence presented, I feel alright sending her to jail for 10 years." Either the evidence convinces you or it doesn't; the punishment tied to the crime should not affect your decision.
-
Sasquatch is a tad bit of a hyperbole. Now Steve? That's possible. And when there's no evidence to suggest that you, instead of Steve, did something with your car? Then yes, that is what we call "reasonable doubt."
Unless, of course, your fingerprints and DNA are all over the car, you don't have an alibi, and eye witnesses place you as the driver of the car. But, when there's no DNA, no eye witnesses, and no cause of death, you can't go convicting people of murder. Or manslaughter. Or criminal negligence that resulted in someone's death. It just doesn't work that way.
What's ignorant is wanting to convict someone of murder because they partied while their child was missing. You don't agree with her actions that she makes in the wake of her child's disappearance? Awesome, but that doesn't affect the fact that there wasn't enough evidence to convict her of murder or manslaughter. You think she's a big skankopotamus with no conscience? Great for you, but that's not evidence of her being the cause of her daughter's death.
Don't care what they convict her of. Just hope she gets the orangutan herpes and suffers greatly.
Beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean the absence of all doubt.
She knew where the kid was, she lied about that knowledge. The child was found with its airways taped shut. She knew where it was and kept that fact hidden. If she knew -- and nobody else did -- it stands to reason that she put it there. Sasquatch didn't. Neither did Steve.
Any reasonable person should be able to understand that connection.
That's enough to convince me that she was in some way responsible for either the death or the disposal of the child. That's enough to nail her for something.
-
Don't care what they convict her of. Just hope she gets the orangutan herpes and suffers greatly.
Beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean the absence of all doubt.
She knew where the kid was, she lied about that knowledge. The child was found with its airways taped shut. She knew where it was and kept that fact hidden. If she knew -- and nobody else did -- it stands to reason that she put it there. Sasquatch didn't. Neither did Steve.
Any reasonable person should be able to understand that connection.
That's enough to convince me that she was in some way responsible for either the death or the disposal of the child. That's enough to nail her for something.
Her defense attorney has a message for you:
(http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/article_adp_anthonyfinger.jpg)
-
She knew where the kid was, she lied about that knowledge. The child was found with its airways taped shut. She knew where it was and kept that fact hidden. If she knew -- and nobody else did -- it stands to reason that she put it there. Sasquatch didn't. Neither did Steve.
Maybe I'm missing something here. Did she tell the police where the body was? Because I don't recall that, and none of the articles that I can find state that. So your assumption that she knew where her daughter was is just that: an assumption. Without evidence that she knew where her daughter was, you can't go about convicting her of placing her daughter there, much less that she even knew her daughter was there.
-
Her defense attorney has a message for you:
(http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/article_adp_anthonyfinger.jpg)
I got one for him, too.
(http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l111/ender138/ha_ha_guy_youre_going_to_hell.jpg?t=1242120009)
-
Maybe I'm missing something here. Did she tell the police where the body was? Because I don't recall that, and none of the articles that I can find state that. So your assumption that she knew where her daughter was is just that: an assumption. Without evidence that she knew where her daughter was, you can't go about convicting her of placing her daughter there, much less that she even knew her daughter was there.
My only frame of reference is what I read and saw when the verdict came out. The panel on one of the shows my wife was watching said that. Went on and on about it. Could have been Fox, MSNBC or CNN.
I didn't follow the trial at all. Couldn't have picked her out of a lineup prior to the announcement.
I already convicted her though, so I'm good with it. She can suck it.
-
To me, one piece of against her is not damning but when you add all this shit together, that bitch was as guilty as anyone. You can't overlook the shit. Again, she may not have had enough evidence against her for lethal injection but common fucking sense nails her ass to the wall.
Side note: the sorry ho has already been offered a deal by Vivid Entertainment to make a porno.
-
Side note: the sorry ho has already been offered a deal by Vivid Entertainment to make a porno.
Give her some time... Either she'll wind up like OJ eventually going to prison for a series of other crimes, or she'll end up dead having OD'd on some really good schit... Karma is a bitch.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/mYAUY.png)
-
(http://i.imgur.com/mYAUY.png)
I <3 you.
-
:homo:
Don't judge!
-
(http://i.imgur.com/mYAUY.png)
That's sad but true.
-
Couldn't we just end all of the back and forth by admitting that lawyers are the most perfect beings on earth and are never wrong? They are above us in the food chain, why are we even trying as lesser beings. I mean, look how many there are on the Forbes Richest people in the world list.
-
Couldn't we just end all of the back and forth by admitting that lawyers are the most perfect beings on earth and are never wrong? They are above us in the food chain, why are we even trying as lesser beings. I mean, look how many there are on the Forbes Richest people in the world list.
:facepalm:
-
Couldn't we just end all of the back and forth by admitting that lawyers are the most perfect beings on earth and are never wrong? They are above us in the food chain, why are we even trying as lesser beings. I mean, look how many there are on the Forbes Richest people in the world list.
The thing is that there are 4-5 lawyers that have weighed in on this issue and all say the exact same thing. If you notice, all of us think she's most likely guilty as hell but are simply saying under our system....good, bad or ugly...the jury did what they should have done.
-
The thing is that there are 4-5 lawyers that have weighed in on this issue and all say the exact same thing. If you notice, all of us think she's most likely guilty as hell but are simply saying under our system....good, bad or ugly...the jury did what they should have done.
Here's the real deal. Common sense for those that like to tag all their "ideas" and "opinions" with in order to make it sound intelligent.
In many cases the defense is hoping to find ONE juror...JUST ONE that feels so strongly that they just can't in good conscience vote "guilty", to hang up the jury.
In this case, a jury listened to all the evidence. A death qualified jury, which means more conservative right off the bat. More likely to convict. They listened without Nancy Grace screaming "she's guilty" for a whole month plus. And at the end of it all, the PROSECUTION had such a shitty case that not one...NOT ONE SINGLE JUROR THOUGH ENOUGH OF THE CASE AND EVIDENCE TO STAND THEIR GROUND WITH "GUILTY" AND HANG THE JURY SO THE STATE COULD GET ANOTHER CRACK! NOT ONE! Now, if I apply good old "common sense" and a good dose of real world experience...THAT tells me all I need to know. Make all the lawyer cracks you want. That my friends says it all. The one juror that's spoken out has said the bullshit and diversions didn't factor in...the bottom line is they just had nothing to hand their hat on for a murder conviction, despite the fact they wanted to find that peg.
-
Here's the real deal. Common sense for those that like to tag all their "ideas" and "opinions" with. In many cases the defense is hoping to find ONE juror...JUST ONE that feels so strongly that they just can't in good conscience vote "guilty", to hang up the jury. In this case, a jury listened to all the evidence. A death qualified jury, which means more conservative right off the bat. More likely to convict. They listened without Nancy Grace screaming "she's guilty" for a whole month plus. And at the end of it all, the PROSECUTION had such a shitty case that not one...NOT ONE SINGLE JUROR THOUGH ENOUGH OF THE CASE AND EVIDENCE TO STAND THEIR GROUND WITH "GUILTY" AND HANG THE JURY SO THE STATE COULD GET ANOTHER CRACK! NOT ONE! Now, if I apply good old "common sense" and a good dose of real world experience...THAT tells me all I need to know. Make all the lawyer cracks you want. That my friends says it all. The one juror that's spoken out has said the bullshit and diversions didn't factor in...the bottom line is they just had nothing to hand their hat on for a murder conviction, despite the fact they wanted to find that peg.
Juror:
We didn't say not guilty. She was guilty. They just didn't prove it.
Something's wrong with that.
-
Juror:
We didn't say not guilty. She was guilty. They just didn't prove it.
Something's wrong with that.
That's not exactly the way she phrased it, but close enough. This is why over-charging sometimes backfires. They, as I understand what she said, thought something was up, but she clearly said there was NO EVIDENCE of how the child died, or who, IF ANYBODY was responsible, and to what level they were responsible.
-
Juror:
We didn't say not guilty. She was guilty. They just didn't prove it.
Something's wrong with that.
Yeah... An overzealous prosecution trying this as a capital case with circumstantial evidence, rather than securing more reasonable convictions...
-
That's not exactly the way she phrased it, but close enough. This is why over-charging sometimes backfires. They, as I understand what she said, thought something was up, but she clearly said there was NO EVIDENCE of how the child died, or who, IF ANYBODY was responsible, and to what level they were responsible.
That's CSI Miami's fault.
We've gotten to the point that the common sense simp referred to no longer applies. Do you really have to have DNA samples when the parent lies and the kid is discovered bound and its airways blocked?
We're so accustomed to watching Calliegh and Delko and Boa Vista figure out that the pool boy did it by examining the rectal excretions of a tsetse fly that we expect absolutes.
When real life investigators -- who don't have miracle tsetse fly probes -- can't make that conclusive determination, the remainder of the evidence is rendered moot.
That's not reasonable doubt in my book. That's unreasonable expectation.
-
Yeah... An overzealous prosecution trying this as a capital case with circumstantial evidence, rather than securing more reasonable convictions...
Dude, are you on drugs, or starting to see the light? By the way, there was very little circumstantial evidence as to murder here...it was more a case of the prosecution asking for a murder conviction by character assassination, which with Casey, wasn't hard to do...surprisingly, juries aren't nearly as stupid as some people think.
By the way...had this prosecution team been able to give the jury something...a smoking gun...for instance...found where Casey actually purchased or possessed chloroform. Found a roll of duct tape in her house and matched the piece found on the body to that roll, or a fingerprint of Casey's on that duct tape found...you'd have had a guilty verdict here. They had squadoosh.
-
That's CSI Miami's fault.
We've gotten to the point that the common sense simp referred to no longer applies. Do you really have to have DNA samples when the parent lies and the kid is discovered bound and its airways blocked?
We're so accustomed to watching Calliegh and Delko and Boa Vista figure out that the pool boy did it by examining the rectal excretions of a tsetse fly that we expect absolutes.
When real life investigators -- who don't have miracle tsetse fly probes -- can't make that conclusive determination, the remainder of the evidence is rendered moot.
That's not reasonable doubt in my book. That's unreasonable expectation.
You're arguing both ends of the spectrum. Yes, CSI makes some things tough in my business.
I'LL SAY THIS AGAIN...THERE'S PLENTY OF EVIDENCE OF A COVERUP, AND SHE WAS CONVICTED OF THAT...
NONE, NO EVIDENCE, JACK FUCKING SQUAT, SQUADOOSH EVIDENCE OF A MURDER, OR WHO COMMITTED IT IF IT WAS A MURDER.
-
Is the baby dead?
Dead baby = Evidence
-
Dude, are you on drugs, or starting to see the light?
Drugs... Definitely drugs... ALWAYS...
By the way, there was very little circumstantial evidence as to murder here...it was more a case of the prosecution asking for a murder conviction by character assassination, which with Casey, wasn't hard to do...surprisingly, juries aren't nearly as stupid as some people think.
We still don't know it was a murder... There was a death, a cover-up and an awful lot of lies. We'll never know the truth.
-
Drugs... Definitely drugs... ALWAYS...
We still don't know it was a murder... There was a death, a cover-up and an awful lot of lies. We'll never know the truth.
Can I buy you a beer, a joint, a line?
-
BTDub....she was just sentenced to 6 days with her time already served. Don't you people think she's been punished enough? Haters...the whole lot of you.
-
Juror:
We didn't say not guilty. She was guilty. They just didn't prove it.
Something's wrong with that.
There is something wrong with that. The part that is wrong is saying that you know she's guilty but that no one can prove it.
How do you know she's guilty if you can't prove it? Because she partied while her daughter was missing? I mean, her actions were completely fucked up, but they don't actually show that she did anything.
Do her actions show that she might be guilty? Yeah, sure, I guess, or they could show that she's just a crazy fucked up bitch that was glad that something happened to her daughter so that she didn't have to deal with her anymore. You can't convict her on speculation as to why she was being a drunken whore for 31 days, nor can you know that she murdered her daughter simply because she ate 25 dicks, 6 pussies, and 9 assholes during the time that her daughter was missing.
-
There is something wrong with that. The part that is wrong is saying that you know she's guilty but that no one can prove it.
How do you know she's guilty if you can't prove it? Because she partied while her daughter was missing? I mean, her actions were completely fucked up, but they don't actually show that she did anything.
Do her actions show that she might be guilty? Yeah, sure, I guess, or they could show that she's just a crazy fucked up bitch that was glad that something happened to her daughter so that she didn't have to deal with her anymore. You can't convict her on speculation as to why she was being a drunken whore for 31 days, nor can you know that she murdered her daughter simply because she ate 25 dicks, 6 pussies, and 9 assholes during the time that her daughter was missing.
Oh, but I already did.
-
Oh, but I already did.
Judge JR is setting that conviction aside.
-
Impeached.
-
Judge JR is setting labeling that conviction aside mucho-retardo.
Fixed.
-
Can I buy you a beer, a joint, a line?
I'll settle for a box of OpusX, Trinidad Maduros or Padron 4000 Maduros. You pick... Surprise me...
-
I'll settle for a box of OpusX, Trinidad Maduros or Padron 4000 Maduros. You pick... Surprise me...
I can appreciate your tastes, but Im on a Swisher Sweets budget.
-
I can appreciate your tastes, but Im on a Swisher Sweets budget.
:puke: I think I'd rather suck a dog turd through a straw.
-
I can appreciate your tastes, but Im on a Swisher Sweets budget.
You can afford the Padron 4000's get him those. Include a box for me.
-
Is the baby dead?
Dead baby = Evidence
Of what? The mortality rate in U.S. states with an average annual rainfall of 40" or more?
-
Of what? The mortality rate in U.S. states with an average annual rainfall of 40" or more?
Right.
Because everybody in all 50 states duct tapes the airways of their children and hides them until they decompose to the point that there's not enough left to gather conclusive evidence as to the cause of death.
That happens everywhere.
-
Because everybody in all 50 states duct tapes the airways of their children and hides them until they decompose to the point that there's not enough left to gather conclusive evidence as to the cause of death.
That's a lot of assumption crammed into one run-on sentence.
-
Because everybody in all 50 states duct tapes the airways of their children and hides them until they decompose to the point that there's not enough left to gather conclusive evidence as to the cause of death.
I definitely understand the frustration and outrage with the verdict, but what you have stated above does not establish that the bitch kunt did it. Reading comments from the jury sealed it for me. The evidence was all circumstantial. There was no smoking gun. There were no direct or conclusive ties to the bitch kunt. Even the jurors admitted and believed that she probably did it, but that's not enough to convict. The prosecution tried this as a capital offense. They could have locked her up on lessor charges of neglect, criminal negligence and a host of other offenses according to the legal pundits, but they went for the career-maker. They screwed up...
-
That's a lot of assumption crammed into one run-on sentence.
I try to get as much in there as possible.
-
I definitely understand the frustration and outrage with the verdict, but what you have stated above does not establish that the bitch kunt did it. Reading comments from the jury sealed it for me. The evidence was all circumstantial. There was no smoking gun. There were no direct or conclusive ties to the bitch kunt. Even the jurors admitted and believed that she probably did it, but that's not enough to convict. The prosecution tried this as a capital offense. They could have locked her up on lessor charges of neglect, criminal negligence and a host of other offenses according to the legal pundits, but they went for the career-maker. They screwed up...
And THAT is the CSI:Miami effect.
There doesn't HAVE to be a smoking gun. You don't HAVE to have video of the person doing it, DNA proving beyond a shadow of a doubt who was there. It doesn't HAVE to be cut and dried.
If that were the case, there would be..... wait..... NO NEED FOR JURIES!
Jury is supposed to view the available evidence (which is circumstantial as much as not) and make a decision.
What I hear is that these stupid fucks heard the evidence, made a decision but wanted somebody to give them a video of the child's death before they could render the decision they'd come to.
If nobody is going to be convicted unless there is infallible proof -- and since video can be faked, DNA can be read in error -- I guess we shouldn't convict anybody ever again.
-
And THAT is the CSI:Miami effect.
There doesn't HAVE to be a smoking gun. You don't HAVE to have video of the person doing it, DNA proving beyond a shadow of a doubt who was there. It doesn't HAVE to be cut and dried.
If that were the case, there would be..... wait..... NO NEED FOR JURIES!
Jury is supposed to view the available evidence (which is circumstantial as much as not) and make a decision.
What I hear is that these stupid fucks heard the evidence, made a decision but wanted somebody to give them a video of the child's death before they could render the decision they'd come to.
If nobody is going to be convicted unless there is infallible proof -- and since video can be faked, DNA can be read in error -- I guess we shouldn't convict anybody ever again.
True enough, but the same holds true for the defense as well. They don't have to have anything iron-clad for an acquittal, either. Every jury has a different idea of reasonable doubt. Personally, I think the bitch did it.
-
And THAT is the CSI:Miami effect.
There doesn't HAVE to be a smoking gun. You don't HAVE to have video of the person doing it, DNA proving beyond a shadow of a doubt who was there. It doesn't HAVE to be cut and dried.
If that were the case, there would be..... wait..... NO NEED FOR JURIES!
Jury is supposed to view the available evidence (which is circumstantial as much as not) and make a decision.
What I hear is that these stupid fucks heard the evidence, made a decision but wanted somebody to give them a video of the child's death before they could render the decision they'd come to.
If nobody is going to be convicted unless there is infallible proof -- and since video can be faked, DNA can be read in error -- I guess we shouldn't convict anybody ever again.
I don't think that this particular case had anything to do with the CSI effect.
There was no known cause of death. You can't prove murder unless you know the cause of death was intentional. The DNA wasn't "read in error;" there simply wasn't any DNA that could tie Casey Anthony to the body. So even if you assume that the child died due to murder, you can't show that she's the one who murdered the child.
It's not that the evidence pointed to Casey Anthony somewhat, but that it wasn't cut and dry enough for the jury. None of the evidence available could even determine that it was a murder, much less who did it. My understanding is that it wasn't a lack of certainty or infallibility with the evidence. It was simply that there was no evidence, CSI caliber or not, which indicated that she was involved.
-
I think it was proven that the little girl was killed, just can't prove that Casey did it.
-
I think it was proven that the little girl was killed
How did she die?
-
How did she die?
Lack of oxygen to the brain.
-
Lack of oxygen to the brain.
How do you know?
Was there medical evidence? Were the brain and pulmonary system autopsied?
-
How do you know?
Was there medical evidence? Were the brain and pulmonary system autopsied?
My understanding is that's the leading cause in the death of anyone.
-
My understanding is that's the leading cause in the death of anyone.
:facepalm:
-
:facepalm:
You like it you dirty whore.
-
How did she die?
I don't know. My guess is by the use of chloroform. I know this much, a kid don't die by accident and then you bury the child in the woods like an animal. I know it can't be proven but everything about Casey Anthony, and even maybe her mom and dad, tells me she did it.
-
My understanding is that's the leading cause in the death of anyone.
In the past year, over 800,000 Americans have died. Despite millions of dollars of research, death continues to be our nation's number one killer.
-
I don't know.
Without a cause of death, you can't claim that it was murder.
My guess is by the use of chloroform.
I hope that people are not getting sentenced to death on guesses.
I know this much, a kid don't die by accident and then you bury the child in the woods like an animal.
Who buried the child in the woods? What evidence establishes the identity of that person?
-
Without a cause of death, you can't claim that it was murder.
I hope that people are not getting sentenced to death on guesses.
Who buried the child in the woods? What evidence establishes the identity of that person?
No you can't sentence someone on guesses. This my opinion only. I may be wrong, but I am pretty sure they have established that the remains they found in the woods were that of Caley Anthony. As for who buried the child, thats the 10 mill question. Whomever it was needs to suffer old school style.
-
No you can't sentence someone on guesses. This my opinion only. I may be wrong, but I am pretty sure they have established that the remains they found in the woods were that of Caley Anthony. As for who buried the child, thats the 10 mill question. Whomever it was needs to suffer old school style.
I know that the body was Caylee. I'm asking who put her there and what evidence identifies the person that put the body there?
-
FYI
Although, so far there's no known treatment for death's crippling effects, still everyone can acquaint himself with the three early warning signs of death: one, rigor mortis; two, a rotting smell; three, occasional drowsiness.
-
I know that the body was Caylee. I'm asking who put her there and what evidence identifies the person that put the body there?
It is my opinion that Caey put her there based on all the States evidence put together; again I'm talking about my opinion. If not Casey, I certainly think it was someone inside that family. I know there was no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, thats not what I am saying. My opinion is merely based on common sense from both evidence and being a parent. If there was more solid evidence, this would have been a slam dunk case.
-
I think it was proven that the little girl was killed, just can't prove that Casey did it.
WHAT MOTHERFUCKING EVIDENCE WAS THERE THAT WAS PRESENTED TO PROVE SHE WAS "KILLED" VS "DIED IN AN ACCIDENT"? NAME IT! PLEASE. I DIDN'T WATCH THE TRIAL, I'M FUCKING FOAMING AT THE MOUTH TO KNOW!
-
I don't know. My guess is by the use of chloroform. I know this much, a kid don't die by accident and then you bury the child in the woods like an animal. I know it can't be proven but everything about Casey Anthony, and even maybe her mom and dad, tells me she did it.
A "guess" is not a Gawd-damn-nuff to convict, especially in a capital murder case!
-
I definitely understand the frustration and outrage with the verdict, but what you have stated above does not establish that the bitch kunt did it. Reading comments from the jury sealed it for me. The evidence was all circumstantial. There was no smoking gun. There were no direct or conclusive ties to the bitch kunt. Even the jurors admitted and believed that she probably did it, but that's not enough to convict. The prosecution tried this as a capital offense. They could have locked her up on lessor charges of neglect, criminal negligence and a host of other offenses according to the legal pundits, but they went for the career-maker. They screwed up...
I'm proud of you. I really am!
-
A "guess" is not a Gawd-damn-nuff to convict, especially in a capital murder case!
WHAT MOTHERFUCKING EVIDENCE WAS THERE THAT WAS PRESENTED TO PROVE SHE WAS "KILLED" VS "DIED IN AN ACCIDENT"? NAME IT! PLEASE. I DIDN'T WATCH THE TRIAL, I'M FUCKING FOAMING AT THE MOUTH TO KNOW!
What part of my opinion don't you get fuck face? Get off your lawyer talk and share a fucking opinion.
Also, if you didn't watch the fucking trial then why in the hell are you even on my shit about my opinion? I mean you sure as hell are acting like you know everything about it. So, I'm sure as hell not gonna go through more of the same to get you caught when you obviously are not hearing shit as it is.
Another thing, take your blood pressure meds before you blow.
-
This place about to BLOW!
(http://static2.dmcdn.net/static/video/429/429/28924924:jpeg_preview_large.jpg?20110301205315)
-
This place about to BLOW!
(http://static2.dmcdn.net/static/video/429/429/28924924:jpeg_preview_large.jpg?20110301205315)
Back door cracked, we don't need a key, we get in for free, no VIP sleaze.
-
examining the rectal excretions of a tsetse fly
Surprised that didn't engage Taylor's legal opinion, with mention of rectal excretions, and tsetse being so similar to testes
-
What part of my opinion don't you get fuck face? Get off your lawyer talk and share a fucking opinion.
Also, if you didn't watch the fucking trial then why in the hell are you even on my shit about my opinion? I mean you sure as hell are acting like you know everything about it. So, I'm sure as hell not gonna go through more of the same to get you caught when you obviously are not hearing shit as it is.
Another thing, take your blood pressure meds before you blow.
So, like the bammers "just know" Cam got paid, you "just know" she was murdered? Your opinion is just like that of the bammers on Cam. That's why. It's pure conjecture. Nothing more. Yet you present it like it's fact, not your opinion. If when you say "she was killed" you preface it with "I have no evidence, I just believe..." then I won't argue with you.
-
Surprised that didn't engage Taylor's legal opinion, with mention of rectal excretions, and tsetse being so similar to testes
I missed it, dammit.
-
So, like the bammers "just know" Cam got paid, you "just know" she was murdered? Your opinion is just like that of the bammers on Cam. That's why. It's pure conjecture. Nothing more. Yet you present it like it's fact, not your opinion. If when you say "she was killed" you preface it with "I have no evidence, I just believe..." then I won't argue with you.
Again, I think I have stated numerous times that what I have said is my opinion. Maybe you scanned over that part.......or parts.
Its not conjecture that someone dumped her remains into the woods. Not sure how many folks out there would do that if Casey's defense was that Caylee drowned in a pool by accident. Not to mention they claimed the little girl was missing for 30 days. Why in the hell do that if it was an accident to begin with?
And no, I'm sorry, but this shit is nowhere near being close to Cam Newton and Auburn......wait a minute, I think the case has been solved.
-
Again, I think I have stated numerous times that what I have said is my opinion. Maybe you scanned over that part.......or parts.
Its not conjecture that someone dumped her remains into the woods. Not sure how many folks out there would do that if Casey's defense was that Caylee drowned in a pool by accident. Not to mention they claimed the little girl was missing for 30 days. Why in the hell do that if it was an accident to begin with?
You've not worked with the criminally stupid like I have the last 18 years. It's completely plausible to me that Casey woke up from a bad drunk or high, found her daughter dead in the pool, panicked (realizing she has an unsavory reputation), and tried to make it look like an abduction. In fact, to me, a scenario like that is more believable than her killing the child just to get more party time in. She partied anyway. I've defended and prosecuted many shitty parents like her. I've never met one that said "Meh, I can't find a sitter, so I'll kill the kid". I've met plenty that could easily forget about the kid or neglect the kid long enough for it to get killed by accident, and can completely see them doing something stupid to cover their neglect.
And yes, mothers do kill their children. I had it happen in my immediate family almost 40 years ago. This case just doesn't have that kind of feel. There's shitloads of shitty people, skanks, whores, druggies etc. Few kill their children. There's far more accidental drownings. I'm not saying she didn't kill the child, but there's NO EVIDENCE that she or anyone committed violence on the kid to cause her death. That's all I'm saying.
-
You've not worked with the criminally stupid like I have the last 18 years. It's completely plausible to me that Casey woke up from a bad drunk or high, found her daughter dead in the pool, panicked (realizing she has an unsavory reputation), and tried to make it look like an abduction. In fact, to me, a scenario like that is more believable than her killing the child just to get more party time in. She partied anyway. I've defended and prosecuted many shitty parents like her. I've never met one that though "Meh, I can't find a sitter, so I'll kill the kid". In almost I've met plenty that could easily forget about the kid or neglect the kid long enough for it to get killed by accident, and can completely see them doing something stupid to cover their neglect.
And yes, mothers do kill their children. I had it happen in my immediate family almost 40 years ago. This case just doesn't have that kind of feel. There's shitloads of shitty people, skanks, whores, druggies etc. Few kill their children. There's far more accidental drownings. I'm not saying she didn't kill the child, but there's NO EVIDENCE that she or anyone committed violence on the kid to cause her death. That's all I'm saying.
Now you've done gone and made it difficult to argue with that.....jkg. I see where you and others are coming from, from a lawyers standpoint. I mean, it is what it is at this point.
-
I see where you and others are coming from, from a lawyers standpoint.
i'm willing to wager there wasn't a lawyer among the jurors. facts are facts. hopefully, you will never serve as a juror if i stand trial.
-
I'm reminded of a couple of jurors in the past. One, and older white guy...looked to be a farmer type. Tall and lanky, grey hair, hard worn skin. When asked a standard voir dire question of if they understood "innocent until proved guilty" he raised his hand, stood up, looked around to make sure he had the room's attention, then said "When I were comin' up, I learnt that whar there's smoke, thar's far, if he got arrested, he musta done somethin'." He smiled and looked around for approval of his nugget of great intelligence he dropped on all of us. Had he been challenged on it, I feel certain he'd have come back with "it's just common sense". He was too stupid to notice the folks shaking their heads embarrassed for him, though I'm certain there were a couple that thought he was a wealth of "common sense".
Another one was a grand juror. Presented a standard "death investigation" of a child that died in the care of a local "school" that takes in problem children, or those in the custody of DHR. High risk to begin with. I can't recall...it was either a suicide, or some type of natural death of a 16 year old. Clearly not a crime whatever it was. Some old black lady voted to true bill it anyway, though we had no defendant to indict. Her rationale was "A chile die, somebody gotta pay!" I asked her "who?". She said, "I don't know, but somebody, chilluns don't just up and die".
-
This case was fucked by the Orange County Sheriff's Department and the Orange County District Attorney's Office from the start. They had enough evidence to get a conviction. Maybe not Murder 1, but a conviction more notable than a fucking misdemeanor.
-
hopefully, you will never serve as a juror if i stand trial.
me either. you'd fry like a chicken leg.
-
me either. you'd fry like a chicken leg.
original or extra crispy?
-
original or extra crispy?
Xcrispy with a hard biscuit.
-
I'm no Casey Anthony fan; but if I have a gun and three bullets and I just so happen to be locked in a room with her, Jeanine Pirro, Nancy Grace, and Jane Velez-Mitchell, I know the three that better duck.
Just hearing their voices makes me pray for their own abduction.
-
I'm proud of you. I really am!
I don't believe my opinion has ever really changed on this, but I'll still let you purchase my next fix.
They screwed this up. She could have been prosecuted on lessor crimes. I was trying to extract that from the legal experts in this thread from the start, but that didn't go anywhere. The legal pundits on the news shows identified at least a half dozen other charges that would have resulted in likely convictions putting her away for a while. They weren't murder or manslaughter charges, but they would have been more appropriate to the evidence.
-
I'm no Casey Anthony fan; but if I have a gun and three bullets and I just so happen to be locked in a room with her, Jeanine Pirro, Nancy Grace, and Jane Velez-Mitchell, I know the three that better duck.
Just hearing their voices makes me pray for their own abduction.
Why waste the lead? I'd rather beat most of them to death instead.
-
I don't believe my opinion has ever really changed on this, but I'll still let you purchase my next fix.
They screwed this up. She could have been prosecuted on lessor crimes. I was trying to extract that from the legal experts in this thread from the start, but that didn't go anywhere. The legal pundits on the news shows identified at least a half dozen other charges that would have resulted in likely convictions putting her away for a while. They weren't murder or manslaughter charges, but they would have been more appropriate to the evidence.
I believe if you go back, I answered you on the "lesser crimes" issue. I believe, despite not having evidence of any intentional or reckless killing, they still could have gotten a conviction on Manslaughter. While it wouldn't have been supported by the evidence, juries are human, and this jury WANTED Casey to pay, but they also were educated by the lawyers and judge on their legal duty, and they did follow that. In general, juries want to compromise a lot of times. But, they're rarely willing to compromise the law in order to convict on a capital crime. Had they been given the opportunity to compromise down, I believe they would have. That's just a hunch from past experience. To be honest, and I don't know FL rules of court, but I'm shocked this judge even let it go to the jury on Capital Murder based on the lack of evidence. But I understand he's pro prosecution.
People that pop off with tough talk on the internet and such...that's fine. I've seen Capital juries deliver verdicts on death penalty cases, some very heinous and violent crimes...they still are delivered with tears in many juror's eyes. It's not natural for most decent people to be responsible for killing another human being, despite how bad that human being is...no juror delivers such a verdict with joy.
-
Why waste the lead? I'd rather beat most of them to death instead.
It would be more fun too.
-
I don't believe my opinion has ever really changed on this, but I'll still let you purchase my next fix.
They screwed this up. She could have been prosecuted on lessor crimes. I was trying to extract that from the legal experts in this thread from the start, but that didn't go anywhere. The legal pundits on the news shows identified at least a half dozen other charges that would have resulted in likely convictions putting her away for a while. They weren't murder or manslaughter charges, but they would have been more appropriate to the evidence.
She was charged with first-degree murder, aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter of a child and four counts of providing false information to police. What other lessor crimes did you want her to be charged with?
-
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gheX-76Mx3I/ThOLBEbyA4I/AAAAAAAADi4/SdSHQoH4EdM/s1600/NBOEY.jpg)
-
She was charged with first-degree murder, aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter of a child and four counts of providing false information to police. What other lessor crimes did you want her to be charged with?
Manslaughter.
-
She was charged with first-degree murder, aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter of a child and four counts of providing false information to police. What other lessor crimes did you want her to be charged with?
Actually, that was my question to the legal experts on the board. According to the legal pundits on the various news shows, there could have been several other charges including manslaughter, neglect, negligence and quite possibly criminal negligence, although that would have been difficult to prove.
-
Actually, that was my question to the legal experts on the board. According to the legal pundits on the various news shows, there could have been several other charges including manslaughter, neglect, negligence and quite possibly criminal negligence, although that would have been difficult to prove.
I'm not sure that they would have gotten any of those. Manslaughter's a long shot because you don't have a cause of death. Negligence is also a long shot because, if you don't have a cause of death, then you don't know whether negligence was a factor. Also, you don't know whose negligence it would be, because you don't know when Caylee died and whose supervision she was under at the time. Pretty much the same with neglect; you have to determine who failed to act.
In all likelihood, the child was with her at most times. Was she with her at the time of death? We can't show that she was, so any charge which requires her her to act or fail to act in the presence of her child can't be proven.
-
I'm not sure that they would have gotten any of those. Manslaughter's a long shot because you don't have a cause of death. Negligence is also a long shot because, if you don't have a cause of death, then you don't know whether negligence was a factor. Also, you don't know whose negligence it would be, because you don't know when Caylee died and whose supervision she was under at the time. Pretty much the same with neglect; you have to determine who failed to act.
In all likelihood, the child was with her at most times. Was she with her at the time of death? We can't show that she was, so any charge which requires her her to act or fail to act in the presence of her child can't be proven.
I'm not going to get into this with you. There are far more experienced legal analysts, former prosecutors and DAs who have commented on the subject. But to throw some things out there, the last time that Caylee was seen alive was June 16th, 2008, and Casey didn't report her missing until July 15th. It is also my understanding that death is not necessary to prove neglect, negligence and/or criminal negligence. Now, I'm done with this...
-
This thread is still going on?
#winning
-
I'm not going to get into this with you. There are far more experienced legal analysts, former prosecutors and DAs who have commented on the subject. But to throw some things out there, the last time that Caylee was seen alive was June 16th, 2008, and Casey didn't report her missing until July 15th. It is also my understanding that death is not necessary to prove neglect, negligence and/or criminal negligence. Now, I'm done with this...
No, you don't need death to prove neglect or negligence, but you do need proof of neglect or negligence. The theory in this case would be that Caylee died due to neglect or negligence. Otherwise, you have no other harm to the child which would prove neglect or negligence. So when you can't show that a person was in the child's presence, you can't show that they failed to act to prevent their death, or that they carelessly acted and that this resulted in their death. Without a cause of death, you don't know that the child was neglected and died as a result of this negligence; it could have been an intentional murder by the father, grandparents, or babysitter.
Now, not reporting her missing for 31 days? It's possible to have charged her with child abandonment under Florida's child neglect statute, but again, with no cause of death or time of death, how do you find her guilty of that? How do you know that she wasn't communicating with, or attempting to communicate with or find, her daughter during that 31 day period? What if her daughter was already dead on day 1? How do you convict someone of neglect against a dead person?
More importantly, you don't have to report a child missing to the police under current law. This is why Kansas, Maryland, and other states are now looking into creating such a law. So, as much as it may sound like neglect, under the current wording of Florida law, it isn't.
It sounds simple to say, "Well, if she's not guilty of murder, manslaughter, or abuse, then she has to be guilty of neglect," but that's not how it works. You can't assume that she did or didn't do something to her daughter, and thus must be guilty of something.
-
:dead: