Casey Anthony Walks !

[Teresa Heilevang]

[billt]

I'm with you Bill.... 1,000%..
 The psyco bitch should be swinging from a tree.. and hopefully someone will see to it when she walks the streets..

The more this jury talks, the more this whole thing stinks on ice. They had 3 ways to go. They chose the worst one. "Juror # 4" This Jennifer broad said they all believed she was guilty. But she said they couldn't convict her of murder because the prosecution didn't prove their case.

OK, let's give her that. They could have deliberately hung the jury and said they were hopelessly deadlocked. This would have resulted in a mistrial, and given the prosecution another chance in a retrial. It also would have taken the monkey off of their backs, and resulted in another jury, (Thank God!). This is exactly what they did to Rod Blagojevich, and he didn't kill anyone. He "talked about" selling Obama's Senate seat. Did he? No. Did any money change hands? No. Did he financially profit in any way, shape, or form that could be proven? No. But they hung the jury, retried him, and got him the second time around. Why? Simply because they hated his guts, and wanted his ass on a stick. They got it, and Rod Blagojevich never hurt a single soul in his entire life. If the man was guilty of anything, he was guilty of being an arrogant, stupid, foul mouthed smart ass. Last time I looked that wasn't a crime. Now, if they can do that to him LEGALLY, no one is going to tell me they couldn't do it to that child murdering bitch.

Here is yet another problem with that whole bunch of idiots on this jury. They also let her skate on child endangerment. Why? We have a woman here in Phoenix as we speak, who is currently sitting in jail, and is most likely going to lose custody of her 2 children because she left them unattended in a parked car, while she spent 2 hours in a bar drinking. The kids are fine, and came to no harm. FACT: This broad goes out drinking and screwing for 31 DAYS, never reports the kid missing. FACT: Then, when the police question her about that very fact, she claims the kid was being watched by her "nanny". FACT: There was no nanny. Then she comes up with this cock and bull story about some wealthy boyfriend. FACT: There was no wealthy boyfriend. Then, the kid turns up DEAD. And she walks on child endangerment charges?? That is insane.

The fact is by their own admission they believed she was guilty. They could have used other legal options that were within their grasp, in an attempt to bring her to justice for this. They were either too lazy, too stupid, or all of the above. Because of their silly, stupid actions we now have a child murderer not only free as a bird, she will most likely bear yet another child at some point in her life. How would you like to be that little girl or boy? Then, provided she let's you live long enough, find out she killed your half sister? And those stupid buffoons that sat in that jury box have the audacity to think they "did the right thing". Yeah, right.   Bill T.

[billt]

I can't confrim this, but I heard on the radio today that vivid entertainment offered her a job.( she actually is a good looking women)

I like to look at a good looking babe as much as the next guy. With that said I honestly can't see how any guy in his right mind could possibly get off over that bitch. I wouldn't piss in her mouth if her guts were on fire. I only hope she finds justice on the street in a far more violent way than she did to her daughter.  Bill T.

[tombogan03884]

Hey Billt And M'ette,and the rest of you .
 The reason the founding Fathers included jury trials and the the double jeopardy clause in the Constitution was to protect unpopular defendants from people like you.
If you are going to stand on the 2nd A to claim your gun rights, you have to abide by the rest of the document as well.
You weren't there when it happened, so you don't know what you are talking about.
You weren't on the jury, so your opinion is meaningless.
You had no dog in the fight, You weren't an accuser, defendant, juror, or lawyer, involved in the case, any interest you have in it is only prurient curiosity, like people rubber necking at a car wreck to see if they can see blood or corpses.
I think that's rather sick, and morbid.
You fall into the sheeple trap of getting all worked up about some BS media event that was intended only to distract you from real wrong doing by the administration.
You people didn't learn a damned thing from Bill Clinton bombing some one every time he had a hearing about Monica Lewinski. The socialist spin Dr's keep using the same distraction tactics and you fall for it every time.

[Pathfinder]

Tom - some of us can do more than one thing at a time, it's called multi-tasking! 

Agreed on the Constitution and double jeopardy comments, but also agree on the incompetence of the prosecution of the Anthony case. This should not have gone the way it did, but it did go this way, and we need to put it away. Never forget that little girl, but there are greater issues going on we need to prepare for.

[Sponsor]

[billt]

Hey Billt And M'ette,and the rest of you .
You had no dog in the fight, You weren't an accuser, defendant, juror, or lawyer, involved in the case, any interest you have in it is only prurient curiosity, like people rubber necking at a car wreck to see if they can see blood or corpses.
I think that's rather sick, and morbid.

No, not in the least. This has nothing to do with "having a dog in the fight". It has nothing to do with the media, "sheeple" or anything else you want to tag it with to make to make it look lame. It has to do with right and wrong. That jury was wrong, pure and simple. You could care less and say, "that's the way the system works, get over it." That is bull$h!t, and if you want to sell it, don't sell it to me.

They had other options jury's use all the time, but chose not to. For whatever reason, they didn't want that girl to spend any more time in jail. Don't try to make this out to be something else that wasn't presented. There were no "secret facts". We all saw what was there. The media shaped none of it. Her lawyer was as poor of a defense attorney as could ever hope to get a case of this magnitude......and he wins it? Why? because he was so brilliant, or because the jury was so stupid? My money is on the latter. Simpson had a brilliant defense team that cost millions. This total ass hat belongs in traffic court.

The fact is this was not a proper murder trial. You had an idiot jury who believed an even bigger idiot defense attorney. You had 2 expert FBI witnesses with impeccable records who testified in dozens of murder trials say they found traces of Chloroform in the trunk ALONG WITH HAIR SAMPLES THAT BELONGED TO Caylee Anthony. THE JURY REFUSED TO BELIEVE THEM! They in fact refuse to believe direct evidence in favor of what?......Lies by a third rate attorney with a legal record that borders on total crap?

You're right about one thing, this is "morbid" all right. But not in the way you describe. Not in the least. It is sad we have idiots out there stupid enough not to know what they can and cannot do to convict a guilty person. They just don't care, or are too stupid. I believe the latter. Especially after hearing that stupid, dumb juror talk. That bitch couldn't, (wouldn't would be a better word), convict Hitler.   Bill T.

[tombogan03884]

You vote ?
That thought scares me comrade.

[billt]

You vote ?
That thought scares me comrade.

I know the system. What scares the living hell out of me are the stupid idiots who don't. We saw the results of that last week, didn't we?   Bill T.

[Teresa Heilevang]

Thank you Bill..................

[billt]

There is something else I heard the other night on a cable discussion show about this whole disaster that was interesting. That is the problem with these sequestered juries on these cases. The guy made a good point. When the Casey Anthony jury first went into deliberation, they immediately took a vote before they started any deliberation. The vote was 10 to 2. 10 not guilty, 2 guilty. Then, just 9 hours later they all agree? How? Those jurors sat through weeks of testimony, and were presented with all sorts of witnesses and evidence. They quite literally took weeks to absorb all of the facts and make up their minds. And 2 of them get changed in just 9 hours by 10 other non professionals? How?

He said these sequestered juries are incarcerated as bad or worse than Casey Anthony herself. Just like the defendant, they sit in court all day listening to the trial. Then Casey was marched out of court and into her jail cell, and the jury was marched out into their hotel room. They are not allowed to watch TV, read newspapers or magazines that contain any news. They can't go home, go to work, visit, nothing. After months of this they want out as bad as her. Who's to say they weren't pressured by their own want to simply get on with their lives? The very reason they are sequestered in the first place could very well be the reason they came to such a stupid verdict. Or certainly contributed to it.

By going to such extreme measures to keep the jury itself "pure", they tainted it with the juries own anxiousness to get their lives back, and get the hell out of there. Many of these people have serious financial obligations, just like everyone else. They have kids to support, mortgages, car payments, etc. Those obligations are put on hold for months with these lengthy trials. This whole business of "doing your civic duty" can only be expected to be carried just so far. Those 2 "guilty" jurors knew they didn't stand much of a chance to convince the other 10 to see it their way, so they caved. Who's to say they just plain had enough of hotels, no work, money, (jury duty pays crap), no life period? One thing is for sure, sequestering these people for 2 months didn't help that verdict one damn bit.

Perhaps sequestered juries have just plain outlived there time. It is a bit foolish to think that by letting these people live a normal life, their vote would somehow be influenced. And at the same time think by locking them up like a homeless, wandering dog, it wouldn't be. We quickly move from trying to keep the jury "pure", to trying to ascertain "pure what"?  Bill T.