If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Casey Anthony's acquittal may be due to her use of Firefox over Internet Explorer   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 151
    More: Florida, Casey Anthony, Firefox, Internet Explorer, Jose Baez, Google, acquittal, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, detectives  
•       •       •

31828 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Nov 2012 at 4:02 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



151 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-25 06:33:17 PM  
So can we have a "targeted assassination" of this woman by drone yet?

If anyone deserves it, it's her.
 
2012-11-25 06:35:45 PM  

iheartscotch: At best; it proves someone looked it up on her computer, not who.


Another doctorate holder in CSI: Miami.

A large enough body of circumstantial evidence is sufficient by itself for a normal, intelligent person to believe beyond any reasonable doubt that a person is guilty. There comes a point at which smart people stop and think "boy... that sure is an awful lot of coincidences to happen to one person at one time without some driving force behind them".
 
2012-11-25 06:36:20 PM  

BronyMedic: So can we have a "targeted assassination" of this woman by drone yet?

If anyone deserves it, it's her.



Nobody is stopping you, you internet tough motherfarker. Hop to it, badass.
 
2012-11-25 06:42:49 PM  
Why did she need chloroform if it was an accident?
 
2012-11-25 06:44:06 PM  

BSABSVR: BronyMedic: So can we have a "targeted assassination" of this woman by drone yet?

If anyone deserves it, it's her.


Nobody is stopping you, you internet tough motherfarker. Hop to it, badass.


By drone, does he mean my p3nis? And by assassination, does he mean vigorously thrusting it into her three primary orifices of copulation?

Cuz I'd be an internet tough guy for that.
 
2012-11-25 06:45:04 PM  

LazerFish: Why did she need chloroform if it was an accident?


Chloroform is an essential part of any guys date kit. Someone probably just left it with her.
 
2012-11-25 06:45:47 PM  

Baz744: Coco LaFemme: I truly believe she killed that kid, because she's a party girl whore who saw being a mother as getting in the way of being a party girl whore. Of course, my gut feelings don't equate to a guilty verdict, so the jury's opinion stands......but I don't have to like it.

I believe she killed the kid too--but more likely negligently than purposely. The kid prolly drowned in the pool while Casey was passed out or something. Then, knowing she was on the hook for criminally negligent homicide, made an extremely clumsy effort to cover it up by making it look like a kidnapping and murder. Her effort almost backfired, landing her in prison for murder.

Just the total incompetence of the cover up makes me thing it wasn't pre-planned. It was done by a person in complete denial about how bad it looked to everyone that no one had seen her kid for a month.


You gotta be careful in making determinations about what a grieving mother should look like...

Public and media opinion during the trial was polarised, with "fanciful rumours and sickening jokes" and many cartoons.[20][21] In particular, antagonism was directed towards Lindy Chamberlain for reportedly not behaving as a "stereotypical" grieving mother.[22] Much was made of the Chamberlains' Seventh-day Adventist religion, including false allegations that the church was actually a cult that killed infants as part of bizarre religious ceremonies,[23] that the family took a newborn baby to a remote desert location, and that Lindy Chamberlain showed little emotion during the proceedings.[citation needed]

... when the dingo did, in fact, eat her baby.

Then again, we're not a court of law. I kinda agree with you that that seems like the most likely explanation.
 
2012-11-25 06:46:46 PM  

martid4: Chloroform is an essential part of any guys date kit. Someone probably just left it with her.


It can be used to clean things safely. Safely for the target surface, anyway. Maybe not so much the person doing the cleaning.

She's a woman. She should be cleaning. Seems legit.
 
2012-11-25 06:51:03 PM  

BSABSVR: Nobody is stopping you, you internet tough motherfarker. Hop to it, badass.


Damn man. Easy. Look, I know it's awesome that you're the space shuttle door gunner and all, but you have some serious anger issues that need addressed.

images.wikia.com

citizenj: By drone, does he mean my p3nis? And by assassination, does he mean vigorously thrusting it into her three primary orifices of copulation?

Cuz I'd be an internet tough guy for that.


stat.mobli.com

You have fun in there.

cleanmyseptic.com.au
 
2012-11-25 06:55:50 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: iheartscotch: At best; it proves someone looked it up on her computer, not who.

Another doctorate holder in CSI: Miami.

A large enough body of circumstantial evidence is sufficient by itself for a normal, intelligent person to believe beyond any reasonable doubt that a person is guilty. There comes a point at which smart people stop and think "boy... that sure is an awful lot of coincidences to happen to one person at one time without some driving force behind them".


Circumstantial evidence is weak evidence. The reason it's called circumstantial evidence is that it really doesn't prove anything untoward happened.

Hair is circumstantial because all it proves is contact. Ex. You had contact with someone who recently had contact with the person in question.

Sometimes circumstantial evidence is enough for a conviction. Sometimes it isn't. It all depends on how the evidence is presented and how each lawyer deals with it.

/ I feel that a murder charge should not be allowed based on just on circumstantial evidence; I feel that there needs to be a smoking gun (read a factor that makes the intent to commit murder obvious) for murder. But, that's just me.
 
2012-11-25 06:58:26 PM  

Butthurted: tzzhc4: Your Average Witty Fark User: Subby doesn't understand how the jury reached their decision.

Casey Anthony got off because Nancy Grace made it a national media mess by blabbing about it daily on her herp derp show.

[images.mstarz.com image 300x226]

If Nancy Grace hadn't taken up her cause than Casey wouldn't have gotten a good lawyer and would have probably been convicted.

It is my opinion that Nancy Grace is the the most reprehensible person currently known within our society. Where as many seem to content to draw their distinctions along political, religious or even geographic divides, I tend to view the world as being comprised of two camps, those that would like to see her drawn and quartered and those that do not.


Which sucks because she covers interesting cases in depth. I wish I could watch her show. I tried the other day when she was reviewing the Hailey Dunn case, but I only made it half way to the commercial break before wanting to gouge out both my eyes and ears with a rusty screwdriver. Holy fark, she not only is the most annoying human on the planet, but for a supposed lawer, she cares very little for actual law or those pesky fact thingies, does she?

And what the hell is up with that nose?
 
2012-11-25 07:00:14 PM  

Marshal805: Marshal805: I remember reading about how some on the jury got harassed by self righteous Floridians over theretheir decision.

/It's about evidence, not emotion.

FTFM


Do you feel superior now?
 
2012-11-25 07:04:05 PM  
We do computer forensics occasionally.

You take a forensic image of the hard drive, kind of like a backup.

Then you feed the image into your processor, and end up with a database you can search.

It's up to the prosecutor to give the investigator what to look for. Keywords, etc. Suffocation and Death would have turned up the key words, where they were, and exact date and time. It's ridiculous to not do this. It's 101. Now - tying someone TO the computer, as actually sitting down and typing, at a certain date and time .. that's the hard part.
 
2012-11-25 07:04:17 PM  

poe_zlaw: PhiloeBedoe: I'm no lawyer but aren't you suppose to introduce evidence during the trial?

The only one responsible for introducing evidence to the trial is the prosecutor- not the defense attorney. The Prosecutor is the one bringing the case and has a duty duty to submit all evidence to the defense team under a process called discovery.


The team that featured "that laughing guy over there."

/my favorite moment of that trial.
 
2012-11-25 07:13:06 PM  
Nobody has offed this biatch yet? She must still be in hiding.
 
2012-11-25 07:15:52 PM  

LazerFish: Why did she need chloroform if it was an accident?


And the duct tape.

Although the chloroform could still be an accident, if she only meant for the kid to be knocked out long enough for her to go party. But the duct tape - there's no reason for that other than suffocation.
 
2012-11-25 07:17:19 PM  
Here's to hoping she does herself in whether intentionally or not.
 
2012-11-25 07:19:34 PM  

namegoeshere: LazerFish: Why did she need chloroform if it was an accident?

And the duct tape.

Although the chloroform could still be an accident, if she only meant for the kid to be knocked out long enough for her to go party. But the duct tape - there's no reason for that other than suffocation.


Indeed. Why chloroform the kid if she drowned by accident in the pool? The only way chloroform knocks you out is if you're inhaling it, hence, alive. The BS about the pool drowning is BS.Crazy chick killed her kid because she didn't want it anymore and didn't want evil mommy (grandma) to have her, either.
 
2012-11-25 07:32:55 PM  

MisterBill: DoomPaul: Flint Ironstag: And its hardly CSI level investigation. They can trace an IP address with a GUI written in visual basic. These guys didnt even think to check Firefox or get records from their ISP. They just checked the easily deleted ie history....

As a mostly technically ignorant individual, would using a VPN help cover one's tracks or is everything saved on your computer?

Not that I'm doing or planning to do anything illegal.

It would prevent your ISP from knowing what you're doing, but your browser history would remain (unless you securely delete it) as well as any logs on the sites you visit.

Not that I do anything illegal, of course.


How would an VPN isolate you from your ISP?

Your connection would go Computer->ISP->VPN->Internet.

Your ISP still sees everything happening, however anyone on the other side of the VPN can't trace you further than that.

---

Maybe this is something you should look into before doing whatever you're doing?
 
2012-11-25 07:47:49 PM  
I just wished that I didn't have to see more shiat on this coont every few weeks or so... Her 15 minutes were up 2 years ago...
 
2012-11-25 07:49:33 PM  
I think the biggest crime here is that someone used google instead of Bing!
 
2012-11-25 08:02:12 PM  

unfarkingbelievable: Marshal805: Marshal805: I remember reading about how some on the jury got harassed by self righteous Floridians over theretheir decision.

/It's about evidence, not emotion.

FTFM

Do you feel superior now?


To Florida? Absolutely.
 
2012-11-25 08:02:31 PM  

spawn73: MisterBill: DoomPaul: Flint Ironstag: And its hardly CSI level investigation. They can trace an IP address with a GUI written in visual basic. These guys didnt even think to check Firefox or get records from their ISP. They just checked the easily deleted ie history....

As a mostly technically ignorant individual, would using a VPN help cover one's tracks or is everything saved on your computer?

Not that I'm doing or planning to do anything illegal.

It would prevent your ISP from knowing what you're doing, but your browser history would remain (unless you securely delete it) as well as any logs on the sites you visit.

Not that I do anything illegal, of course.

How would an VPN isolate you from your ISP?

Your connection would go Computer->ISP->VPN->Internet.

Your ISP still sees everything happening, however anyone on the other side of the VPN can't trace you further than that.

---

Maybe this is something you should look into before doing whatever you're doing?


Generally, VPN connections are encrypted. The ISP can see that you connect to a particular IP Address, but cannot see the traffic that goes to the IP. That's why they're called Virtual Private Networks, not Virtual Public Networks.
 
2012-11-25 08:26:36 PM  

martid4: Aw come on, who here wouldn't get Casey Anthony, Ann Coulter and Nancy Grace in a pile? Granted Nancy would have to be on the bottom of the pile so she doesn't pop the other two like a zit.


Make sure Casey gets your load. That way you don't have to worry about birth control.
 
2012-11-25 08:28:17 PM  

Feral_and_Preposterous: martid4: Aw come on, who here wouldn't get Casey Anthony, Ann Coulter and Nancy Grace in a pile? Granted Nancy would have to be on the bottom of the pile so she doesn't pop the other two like a zit.

Make sure Casey gets your load. That way you don't have to worry about birth control.


Or Ann. Dudes can't get preggers.
 
2012-11-25 08:31:43 PM  

iheartscotch: Vegan Meat Popsicle: iheartscotch: At best; it proves someone looked it up on her computer, not who.

Another doctorate holder in CSI: Miami.

A large enough body of circumstantial evidence is sufficient by itself for a normal, intelligent person to believe beyond any reasonable doubt that a person is guilty. There comes a point at which smart people stop and think "boy... that sure is an awful lot of coincidences to happen to one person at one time without some driving force behind them".

Circumstantial evidence is weak evidence. The reason it's called circumstantial evidence is that it really doesn't prove anything untoward happened.

Hair is circumstantial because all it proves is contact. Ex. You had contact with someone who recently had contact with the person in question.

Sometimes circumstantial evidence is enough for a conviction. Sometimes it isn't. It all depends on how the evidence is presented and how each lawyer deals with it.

/ I feel that a murder charge should not be allowed based on just on circumstantial evidence; I feel that there needs to be a smoking gun (read a factor that makes the intent to commit murder obvious) for murder. But, that's just me.


Well, first of all there has to be a murder. That was ultimately why this particular case fell apart for the prosecution--they couldn't prove the child was even murdered (i.e., died at the hands of another human being) as opposed to her death being accidental. Their whole case boiled down to "Well, IF she was killed by EITHER being chloroformed or suffocated to death and IF her mother had had either the chloroform or duct tape which she got for the express purpose of killing her child, etc. etc. THEN this would be first-degree murder." But they couldn't even make that first connection. They had no solid evidence of how the child died.

Circumstantial evidence works well if there's a cause of death that can be tied to the physical evidence in the defendant's possession. If a victim is killed by being poisoned with arsenic, and the defendant ordered a pound of arsenic-based rat poison a week before the death and didn't have any other reason for doing so; then even if nobody saw the defendant poison the victim, that's pretty good circumstantial evidence. But that's not what we had here.
 
2012-11-25 08:40:01 PM  

diaphoresis: I have been the victim of identity theft. Fortunately 2 things occurred:

1. I know a brilliant computer guy who knew how to get the records ISPs say they don't keep on customers
2. The identity thief did everything by Internet

He literally helped me find out who did it, what her REAL name/SSN/birthdate/address was, and handed the cops over a ream of paper detailing everything.

and the detectives in the Anthony case didn't even thoroughly check browser cache / history... wow.. I underpay my computer guy. Maybe I should have given him a bj...




Have they sentenced her yet or is it still ongoing?
 
2012-11-25 08:50:39 PM  

Gyrfalcon: iheartscotch: Vegan Meat Popsicle: iheartscotch: At best; it proves someone looked it up on her computer, not who.

Another doctorate holder in CSI: Miami.

A large enough body of circumstantial evidence is sufficient by itself for a normal, intelligent person to believe beyond any reasonable doubt that a person is guilty. There comes a point at which smart people stop and think "boy... that sure is an awful lot of coincidences to happen to one person at one time without some driving force behind them".

Circumstantial evidence is weak evidence. The reason it's called circumstantial evidence is that it really doesn't prove anything untoward happened.

Hair is circumstantial because all it proves is contact. Ex. You had contact with someone who recently had contact with the person in question.

Sometimes circumstantial evidence is enough for a conviction. Sometimes it isn't. It all depends on how the evidence is presented and how each lawyer deals with it.

/ I feel that a murder charge should not be allowed based on just on circumstantial evidence; I feel that there needs to be a smoking gun (read a factor that makes the intent to commit murder obvious) for murder. But, that's just me.

Well, first of all there has to be a murder. That was ultimately why this particular case fell apart for the prosecution--they couldn't prove the child was even murdered (i.e., died at the hands of another human being) as opposed to her death being accidental. Their whole case boiled down to "Well, IF she was killed by EITHER being chloroformed or suffocated to death and IF her mother had had either the chloroform or duct tape which she got for the express purpose of killing her child, etc. etc. THEN this would be first-degree murder." But they couldn't even make that first connection. They had no solid evidence of how the child died.

Circumstantial evidence works well if there's a cause of death that can be tied to the physical evidence in the defendant's possession. If a victim is killed by being poisoned with arsenic, and the defendant ordered a pound of arsenic-based rat poison a week before the death and didn't have any other reason for doing so; then even if nobody saw the defendant poison the victim, that's pretty good circumstantial evidence. But that's not what we had here.


I agree; they just didn't have the evidence to prove that the little girl had been murdered.

If they had waited; they might have found someway to prove that the girl had been murdered.

This way; the only way she could be convicted now is if she wrote a book titled, "how I done it". Even then, they could only get her for depriving the little girl of her civil rights.
 
2012-11-25 08:55:50 PM  
Oh great, now my clueless boss is going to tell me to stop using FireFox because child-murderers use it. Bad PR, you know.

/already had one confrontation over it
//she said "that FireFox thing" wasn't approved
///so I asked for documentation that IE was required and never heard back from her
 
2012-11-25 08:57:32 PM  

Tsar_Bomba1: diaphoresis: I have been the victim of identity theft. Fortunately 2 things occurred:

1. I know a brilliant computer guy who knew how to get the records ISPs say they don't keep on customers
2. The identity thief did everything by Internet

He literally helped me find out who did it, what her REAL name/SSN/birthdate/address was, and handed the cops over a ream of paper detailing everything.

and the detectives in the Anthony case didn't even thoroughly check browser cache / history... wow.. I underpay my computer guy. Maybe I should have given him a bj...



Have they sentenced her yet or is it still ongoing?


She got 15yrs.. she had stolen more than 1 identity apparently. This was about a year ago.
 
2012-11-25 09:24:02 PM  

Valiente: Butthurted: tzzhc4: Your Average Witty Fark User: Subby doesn't understand how the jury reached their decision.

Casey Anthony got off because Nancy Grace made it a national media mess by blabbing about it daily on her herp derp show.

[images.mstarz.com image 300x226]

If Nancy Grace hadn't taken up her cause than Casey wouldn't have gotten a good lawyer and would have probably been convicted.

It is my opinion that Nancy Grace is the the most reprehensible person currently known within our society. Where as many seem to content to draw their distinctions along political, religious or even geographic divides, I tend to view the world as being comprised of two camps, those that would like to see her drawn and quartered and those that do not.

But if there was a hardcore porno of her putting stress cracks in Ann Coulter's boyish pelvis thanks to the vigorous and prolonged thrusting of Nancy Grace's epic-sized strap-on, would it twitch?

Just a little?

I for one would be conflicted, and I like neither of those hags.


My bunk. I'll be in it.
 
2012-11-25 09:41:22 PM  

DoomPaul: MisterBill: DoomPaul: Flint Ironstag: And its hardly CSI level investigation. They can trace an IP address with a GUI written in visual basic. These guys didnt even think to check Firefox or get records from their ISP. They just checked the easily deleted ie history....

As a mostly technically ignorant individual, would using a VPN help cover one's tracks or is everything saved on your computer?

Not that I'm doing or planning to do anything illegal.

It would prevent your ISP from knowing what you're doing, but your browser history would remain (unless you securely delete it) as well as any logs on the sites you visit.

Not that I do anything illegal, of course.

Thank you.

We shall both continue doing nothing illegal.


Or you could use two separate erasing utilities on browser exit and run a more thorough, weekly erasure with a third utility that gives the option for several different types of passes (DoD, Schneier, British HMG, Gutmann, etc) and includes the option to replace erased files with random data or any file you select for plausible deniability purposes.

I actually don't do anything illegal (that I know of... though I might smuggle a Big Gulp into NYC next time I'm there). I'm just former intel.
 
2012-11-25 09:48:48 PM  

LazarusLong42: WTF Indeed: [i1120.photobucket.com image 400x321]

:( I winced at that.

----

The prosecution team was obviously completely incompetent here. That doesn't mean this evidence would have convinced the jury though, nor does it mean there was enough evidence to convict anyway. I don't suppose there are other people out there who have considered that she just plain didn't do it, but is still just ultra-crazy?


They overreached and went for the wrong charge without the evidence to convict on that charge. Loved the comment on TFA where someone said the jury wasn't reasonable and believed the defense team. Reasonable doubt: I do not think it means what they think it means. The defense did their job; the prosecution did not. They could have gone murder two or even manslaughter with child endangerment or neglect attached and met the burden of proof. They went for the big charge thanks to that cow on CNN, rushed it to trial - again thanks to that cow on CNN - and did not adequately prepare their case.

IANAL, but does the prosecution have grounds to appeal or go after Baez and the defense team for misconduct due to not presenting the facts of the computer analysis during discovery? Or do only prosecutors have to share information that benefits the other side obtained during their investigation?
 
2012-11-25 10:38:55 PM  

iheartscotch: Vegan Meat Popsicle: iheartscotch: At best; it proves someone looked it up on her computer, not who.

Another doctorate holder in CSI: Miami.

A large enough body of circumstantial evidence is sufficient by itself for a normal, intelligent person to believe beyond any reasonable doubt that a person is guilty. There comes a point at which smart people stop and think "boy... that sure is an awful lot of coincidences to happen to one person at one time without some driving force behind them".

Circumstantial evidence is weak evidence. The reason it's called circumstantial evidence is that it really doesn't prove anything untoward happened.

Hair is circumstantial because all it proves is contact. Ex. You had contact with someone who recently had contact with the person in question.

Sometimes circumstantial evidence is enough for a conviction. Sometimes it isn't. It all depends on how the evidence is presented and how each lawyer deals with it.

/ I feel that a murder charge should not be allowed based on just on circumstantial evidence; I feel that there needs to be a smoking gun (read a factor that makes the intent to commit murder obvious) for murder. But, that's just me.


Enough circumstancial evidence generally means the defendant is either guilty, or incredibly unlucky.
 
2012-11-25 10:52:43 PM  

Aigoo: LazarusLong42: WTF Indeed: [i1120.photobucket.com image 400x321]

:( I winced at that.

----

The prosecution team was obviously completely incompetent here. That doesn't mean this evidence would have convinced the jury though, nor does it mean there was enough evidence to convict anyway. I don't suppose there are other people out there who have considered that she just plain didn't do it, but is still just ultra-crazy?

They overreached and went for the wrong charge without the evidence to convict on that charge. Loved the comment on TFA where someone said the jury wasn't reasonable and believed the defense team. Reasonable doubt: I do not think it means what they think it means. The defense did their job; the prosecution did not. They could have gone murder two or even manslaughter with child endangerment or neglect attached and met the burden of proof. They went for the big charge thanks to that cow on CNN, rushed it to trial - again thanks to that cow on CNN - and did not adequately prepare their case.

IANAL, but does the prosecution have grounds to appeal or go after Baez and the defense team for misconduct due to not presenting the facts of the computer analysis during discovery? Or do only prosecutors have to share information that benefits the other side obtained during their investigation?


It varies between jurisdictions, but the general rule of thumb is that a defense attorney only needs to turn over anything that he expects/intends to use at trial to either present an original defense or rebut a portion of the State's case. Conversely, the State is required to turn over ALL of their information, whether they intend to use it or not.

Since the computer was examined by a defense expert, it's possible that the State could have subpoenaed the examiner and asked what he found in the computer, but since the State had its own examiners it likely didn't want ot get involved in that potential argument about whether that represented "work product" which is considered confidential and isn't subject to discovery unless there is an intent to use it.

/Defense Attorney in Indiana
 
2012-11-25 10:54:09 PM  

Flint Ironstag: And its hardly CSI level investigation. They can trace an IP address with a GUI written in visual basic. These guys didnt even think to check Firefox or get records from their ISP. They just checked the easily deleted ie history....


pbs.twimg.com
What a CSI IP trace might look like

/hot like the microwave they cook flesh in
//guess which series this turned up in
 
2012-11-25 10:57:46 PM  
Says a lot about me that no matter the outcome of all that, I still sorta want to.
 
2012-11-25 11:33:00 PM  
This is precisely why I don't use the internet.
 
2012-11-25 11:43:35 PM  

the_chief: This is precisely why I don't use the internet.


ditto
 
2012-11-25 11:57:22 PM  

Your Average Witty Fark User: Subby doesn't understand how the jury reached their decision.


her kid, she can kill it if she wants, i don't care, not my kid; hamsters eat their young, i've seen it

lh3.googleusercontent.com --> 

/you want to put a woman to death when you can't even prove she killed anyone, let alone her own baby? what kind of sick bastard are you?
 
2012-11-26 12:03:34 AM  
lh5.googleusercontent.com
 
2012-11-26 02:15:50 AM  
Hey brony this is for you!

i19.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-26 02:44:02 AM  
Casey Anthony is a criminal. She is not able to be a productive member of society. She will get in trouble with the law again. And when she does whoever prosecutes her will come out with guns blazing.
Remember OJ? He is rotting in a Nevada prison right now.
 
2012-11-26 02:52:04 AM  

bubo_sibiricus: It's the only thing that keeps us from sliding down the path to where people eventually get disappeared in the dead of night and pushed out of helicopters 10 miles from shore.


We're already near the bottom of that path. Here's just a small sample:

Exhibit A - Kenney Trentadue
Exhibit B - Anwar al-Awlaki
Exhibit C - the American victims of Operation Condor
The list goes on and on.

And America, for the most part, is either in denial or doesn't care. We might as well replace the stars on the US flag with 50 little swastikas.
 
2012-11-26 03:01:08 AM  

BronyMedic: So can we have a "targeted assassination" of this woman by drone yet?

If anyone deserves it, it's her.


I didn't follow this case obsessively like so many others apparently did so I don't understand how so many people can be sure she's guilty and yet a jury failed to convict her.

But if we start executing people who a lot of people are really really sure not only are guilty but should have been given the death penalty why don't we just avoid the cost of a trial in the first place?
 
2012-11-26 05:23:05 AM  

Happy Hours: BronyMedic: So can we have a "targeted assassination" of this woman by drone yet?

If anyone deserves it, it's her.

I didn't follow this case obsessively like so many others apparently did so I don't understand how so many people can be sure she's guilty and yet a jury failed to convict her.

But if we start executing people who a lot of people are really really sure not only are guilty but should have been given the death penalty why don't we just avoid the cost of a trial in the first place?


A good movie about this very subject. Starring Michael Doublas and Hal Holbrook. Older movie but still awesome.

cdn2-b.examiner.com
 
2012-11-26 05:49:15 AM  
If I were a juror on that case, this could well have been the deciding factor.

Chloroform/chlorophyll... Dodgy, but just barely plausible. I've done enough searches and either the automatic "did you mean..." suggestion was wacky, or I hit the wrong thing in the suggestion menu and ended up off in left field of where I wanted to be. So privately I'd think "you're probably guilty", but reasonable doubt exists even with all the other circumstantial evidence, so I wouldn't vote to convict.

But now on top of that we have a search for "fool-proof suffocation" in a browser history trail that indicates it was Casey Anthony doing the searching? That plus all the other sketchy behavior admitted at trial would personally peg my Culp-O-Meter. It is indeed just barely possible you are the victim of "a lot of bad luck floating around", but it sure as hell ain't reasonably likely.

And as others have pointed out, this is all on the prosecution -- the defense just did their job, it was the prosecutors who rushed and dropped the ball badly on this. Laughing Jeff should go to bed every night to the sound of a Greek chorus reminding him that now little Caylee can never have justice because of him and his squad of hyenas.
 
2012-11-26 06:05:06 AM  
i.chzbgr.com
 
2012-11-26 08:25:22 AM  

Bigdogdaddy: A good movie about this very subject. Starring Michael Doublas and Hal Holbrook. Older movie but still awesome.


I remember that movie and it was good..

crap are movies from the '80s considered older now?

I guess - it's about 30 years old by now - hey, does that mean they'll remake it soon?
 
2012-11-26 06:22:17 PM  
is it just me or does Casey Anthony somewhat look like Tara from SoA?
 
Displayed 50 of 151 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report