THEY LET THE b***h GO!

Post Reply New Topic

Just recently, a couple of the jurors finally broke their silence. One said they didn't find her innocent, just not guilty. Another wished the prosecution would have given the jury more proof tying her to the murder, so they could have put her away.
Obviously, the jury believed she was guilty, but it was not proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I'd also like to say, I think that b***h and her shysters had sold her old man up the river, simply to distract the jury from her guilt, and to make her look like a victim. Is it possible Mr. Anthony was a pedophile? Of course. But then again, it's possible that there really is a Big Foot, too. So, no, I don't believed she was molested by her father.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Not that human behavior makes sense, but they were all involved. Not reporting the child missing for a month.

The father did have the background to make a body vanish, the remains found were not a very good job of disposing of evidence.

The duct tape was from the house.

I do not think the car evidence was sound.

If she drowned in the pool, there is no reason to cover it up.

There is even less reason to make it look like murder.

So she died at the house in a way that could not be reported.

No broken bones, so drug overdose, Mommies candy, or sexual, or duct taping her mouth to stop her screaming. and covering her nose too. Duct tape on skin shows, child abuse.

Killing a small child is easy, just hold them under in the pool, a tragic accident, happens all the time. Mothers do chose to drown their children. So if that was her intent, it would be easy.

So why would someone make it look like murder? Applying the duct tape after she was dead. Disposing of the body where it would be found. Flesh decays, bones last.

Now we get back to not reported for a month. Time enough for flesh evidence to decay. It would rule out drugs, for even decayed flesh leaves a residue, and that can be tested for drugs.

All of this points away from her. The child did not die because of her acts or neglect.

She did not have the power in the household to say, she is gone, do not report it. Only her father fits that description. It was his duct tape.

She also had a boyfriend, possible father of the child, who died in an accident. I would investigate that accident again.

The father seems to have control issues, and she seems to have learned to do as she was told. Her stories were weak, but rehersed.

From the jury view, she is not likely the guilty party. someone is, but finding her guilty would close the case.

I would also look back to before they moved from Ohio, did other boyfriends show up dead?

In a very small group in the house we do have a killer, perhaps a serial killer, who has the background to get away with it. I see her as living in fear that the next accident could be hers.

No one has explained why they did not report it for a month. Only one person could control that group.

She may well know a lot, but can not prove it.

Find her not guilty, you know she will get a book deal, become financially independant, likely change her name, vanish, and be able to tell her side.

That her parents did not report it, and she was their puppet, leaves the case open.

While being tried for murder one, she was not free to do anything but defend.

Juries do have brains.

That's the American justice system, with the prosecution having the burden of proof, and that it's extremely difficult to get a conviction based only on circumstantial evidence, and the delay in finding the body to the point where actual evidence was lost. In the end, the only thing she was convicted of was lying to law enforcement, which is something that will remain on her criminal record, making getting a job difficult for most people, but given her notoriety, she will never be able to get a job as once a HR person sees her name, the application is going straight to the paper shredder.

She doesn't need a job when our society glorifies people like her because she's pretty.

She'll be getting movie deals, book offers but she is a sociopath that will go broke even with millions of dollars.

In prison she wrote letters to an inmate claiming she wants to adopt a child. Who in their right mind would allow that to happen?

I wonder who would have it harder to adopt. This lady or a homosexual couple. My bet is the homosexual couple.

There was plenty of evidence in this case. I knew of a case where a lady didn't call cops after her child was missing for a week and it turned out her boyfriend killed her child and that mother went to prison for 8 years over not calling in time. I wonder if the jury felt sympathy for her because she was pretty or some of the jury themselves had issues.

Also, because she has spent more than three years in jail, she is going to be released next Wednesday over the lying to the police officer charges.

Ted Bundy also had the same multitude of facial expressions in court. Sociopaths like her lie and practice these faces. Ted Bundy was going to walk too until it became obvious to the jury that he was having a good flashback when asking the police officers on the stand to describe the victim's bodies.

When they showed the remains of her child's body, she had no emotion. I don't believe the jury did a good job.

I hope the next person Casey murders is her mother.
Cindy Anthony makes me want to vomit.

Casey Anthony is a heartless, lying psychopath.
That's why I think she killed her daughter.
I am not a court of law, and am free to form my opinion of her guilt or innocence based upon whatever criteria I see fit.
Guilty!

Jurors used to not have DNA evidence back in the day. There was a motive. She wanted to be free to party and after her daughter died, that is exactly what she did. She even got a tattoo that means good life. She was upbeat and happy during that time. Sorry THAT is not "shocked" and no matter how many people try to spin what shocked means, I know what shock is after someone's child went missing.



Back in the days before DNA evidence, there were other factors the jurors had to rely on. Evidence presented and common sense. Judging the person's reaction. There was no DNA evidence concluding Ted Bundy murdered all of those women and alot of people thought because he was handsome and charming that they got the wrong person. The juror relied on common sense and seeing how he responded after asking cops to describe the victim's body to determine he was guilty.

The jury failed.

The defense claimed this little girl had an accident and drowned. Since the girl had duct tape on her mouth, common sense would conclude that was a lie.

Even one of the jurors suggested the accidental swimming death seemed plausible... HELLO? FAILED!

Not reporting it immediately, partying after, getting a tattoo that means good life, living it up after your toddler dies, pathological liar, body left in a garbage bag in the swamp, car reeking of death, daughter last seen with her mother. Yet there just wasn't enough evidence? I wonder if jury of her peers was taken literally to mean a jury of psychopaths just like her.

Juror number 3 is a nurse...

She was only found guilty of one charge. Lying which sets her free next Wednesday due to already serving 3 years. It seems like the jury just wanted to give her a free pass.

Not guilty of 1st degree murder. Not guilty of aggravated child abuse and aggravated manslaughter.

Where are these juror's minds? I'm guessing they thought more about the book deals they could get once reaching a not guilty verdict.

I doubt her father and mother did this. Casey comes across as manipulative pathological liar who wraps people around her finger. She had some really high end bails that others paid to get her out.

Some parents like to defend their child no matter what and will even put up with being thrown under the bus thinking it's for their child so it's okay. These types of parents actually enable children who are budding psychopaths by not making them take responsibility for their actions.