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.

(WTSP)   Best pictures of Casey Anthony getting a noogie from her lawyer you will see all day   (wtsp.com) divider line 123
    More: Florida, Casey Anthony, Tampa, sketch artists, courtroom sketch  
•       •       •

23140 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Mar 2013 at 12:34 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-03-04 11:53:29 AM
She's no Gilda Radner.
 
2013-03-04 12:11:40 PM
dubsism.files.wordpress.com

/oblig
 
2013-03-04 12:35:40 PM
I feel sad for her daughter.
 
2013-03-04 12:36:55 PM
And that's when her lawyer pulled off his rubber mask and revealed he was Bill Murray. Then he looked at her and winked and said "Nobody will ever believe you".
 
2013-03-04 12:37:18 PM
That's not a nuggie, it's a headlock.
 
2013-03-04 12:38:57 PM
Tot mom, tot mom, tot mom, tot mom, TOT MOM.
 
2013-03-04 12:39:43 PM
Good smothering technique by her lawyer.  I wonder where he learned that from?
 
2013-03-04 12:39:52 PM
I want her so bad.

I need a woman willing to kill children in my corner.
 
2013-03-04 12:40:01 PM
I want some better fat Casey pics.  I heard she gained hella weight.
 
2013-03-04 12:40:54 PM
If women want to hide why not just wear a burka
 
2013-03-04 12:42:13 PM
www.wtsp.com

Next time, I'm getting a lawyer that uses deodorant.
 
2013-03-04 12:42:38 PM
images.hitfix.com
I can still dream right?
 
2013-03-04 12:44:07 PM
www.wtsp.com

This is my b*tch.  There are many like it, but this one's mine.
 
2013-03-04 12:44:24 PM
something, something pictures of Casey Anthony's nuggets, something something
 
2013-03-04 12:44:42 PM
Is that some kind of submission hold? Where the Octagon?
 
2013-03-04 12:48:09 PM
She can put my penis in a headlock any day
 
2013-03-04 12:48:54 PM
Oh goody, another woman to hate!
 
2013-03-04 12:48:59 PM
Gotta have my tots.
 
2013-03-04 12:49:19 PM
I wonder if she wakes up after a crazy night of parties, booze and coke and blowing random dudes and thinks to herself, yeah totally worth killing that brat.
 
2013-03-04 12:50:03 PM

BalugaJoe



I feel sad for her daughter.


Why? She's with Jesus now.
 
2013-03-04 12:50:53 PM
Zenaida Gonzalez and former meter reader Roy Kronk both plan to sue Anthony. They're fighting the bankruptcy, because if Anthony is successful in going bankrupt, they're worried they'll lose their ability to sue her.

Because their lawsuits will clearly bring the little girl back from the dead.  WTF?
 
2013-03-04 12:52:18 PM

hdhale: Zenaida Gonzalez and former meter reader Roy Kronk both plan to sue Anthony. They're fighting the bankruptcy, because if Anthony is successful in going bankrupt, they're worried they'll lose their ability to sue her.

Because their lawsuits will clearly bring the little girl back from the dead.  WTF?


If they can't be in prison, you can always hound them to death and try to keep them on the brink of poverty.  Ron Goldman has pursued OJ Simpson with the fury of a thousand sons, and so OJ eventually farked up and ended up in jail.
 
2013-03-04 12:53:58 PM
That dude's tie is incredible.
 
2013-03-04 12:57:20 PM
I don't really get this whole "hide under the coat" thing.  She was judged innocent in her daughter's death.  She's never going to jail for that.  This is a bankruptcy hearing.  If I were her, I'd be walking straight up and chin high, daring people to comment.  What does she have to lose at this point?  She's already universally reviled.  It's not like cowering under the lawyer is going to garner any sympathy.
 
2013-03-04 12:58:18 PM
i50.tinypic.com

There we go. That should shut her up.
 
2013-03-04 01:01:10 PM
Bankrupt? She's been mentally bankrupt all her life.
 
2013-03-04 01:04:08 PM

Close2TheEdge: I don't really get this whole "hide under the coat" thing.  She was judged innocent in her daughter's death.  She's never going to jail for that.  This is a bankruptcy hearing.  If I were her, I'd be walking straight up and chin high, daring people to comment.  What does she have to lose at this point?  She's already universally reviled.  It's not like cowering under the lawyer is going to garner any sympathy.


There are enough people who feel strongly about this that if she gets into the habit of letting people know she's still alive or going out in public without cowering in terror, she will almost certainly be the victim of any number of forcible felonies.
 
2013-03-04 01:05:48 PM
1. file chapter 7 bankruptcy
2. move to another state
3. find someone to briefly marry you
4. get state to issue you new license in "married" name
5. get divorce

call me so I can do you for helping you
 
2013-03-04 01:10:52 PM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: [i50.tinypic.com image 850x478]

There we go. That should shut her up.


Needs a heart sticker on it.
 
2013-03-04 01:11:58 PM

kingflower: Tot mom, tot mom, tot mom, tot mom, TOT MOM.


img19.imageshack.us
 
2013-03-04 01:12:18 PM
i1120.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-04 01:14:59 PM

whizbangthedirtfarmer: hdhale: Zenaida Gonzalez and former meter reader Roy Kronk both plan to sue Anthony. They're fighting the bankruptcy, because if Anthony is successful in going bankrupt, they're worried they'll lose their ability to sue her.

Because their lawsuits will clearly bring the little girl back from the dead.  WTF?

If they can't be in prison, you can always hound them to death and try to keep them on the brink of poverty.  Ron Goldman has pursued OJ Simpson with the fury of a thousand sons, and so OJ eventually farked up and ended up in jail.


Except that I had about 5 minutes where I felt sorry for Ron Goldman, and after that I pretty much wanted to see him get hit by a bus and I figured OJ was guilty was day 1.

OJ farked up because OJ was farked up, it had nothing to do with the professional victim pursuing him.  You don't slash two people to death and suddenly you're all better--ask Lizzie Borden.  He never got any help for his obvious issues and it was a matter of time before he did something really stupid.  The incident in Vegas was that really stupid.
 
2013-03-04 01:16:43 PM

Prank Call of Cthulhu: [i1120.photobucket.com image 400x321]


OMG.  Monitor, keyboard, desk.  Flooded.
 
2013-03-04 01:23:25 PM

Prank Call of Cthulhu: [i1120.photobucket.com image 400x321]


That meme always gives me a sad...
 
2013-03-04 01:26:39 PM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: numbone: [i83.photobucket.com image 270x360]

That should feel good when it's time to take the tape off.

[i48.tinypic.com image 400x377]


Unless you never need to take the tape off.....

PS. is that photo shopped?  I don't remember seeing that before.
PPS. was the daughter found with duct tape, or is that another case I'm thinking of?

/Thanks a lot for reminding us there was a real life lost.
 
2013-03-04 01:27:14 PM
LEAVE CASEY ALONE!!!!!

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-04 01:28:05 PM
s21.postimage.org

Worst disguise ever.
 
2013-03-04 01:29:20 PM

hdhale: whizbangthedirtfarmer: hdhale: Zenaida Gonzalez and former meter reader Roy Kronk both plan to sue Anthony. They're fighting the bankruptcy, because if Anthony is successful in going bankrupt, they're worried they'll lose their ability to sue her.

Because their lawsuits will clearly bring the little girl back from the dead.  WTF?

If they can't be in prison, you can always hound them to death and try to keep them on the brink of poverty.  Ron Goldman has pursued OJ Simpson with the fury of a thousand sons, and so OJ eventually farked up and ended up in jail.

Except that I had about 5 minutes where I felt sorry for Ron Goldman, and after that I pretty much wanted to see him get hit by a bus and I figured OJ was guilty was day 1.

OJ farked up because OJ was farked up, it had nothing to do with the professional victim pursuing him.  You don't slash two people to death and suddenly you're all better--ask Lizzie Borden.  He never got any help for his obvious issues and it was a matter of time before he did something really stupid.  The incident in Vegas was that really stupid.


I would venture to say that Goldman couldn't really give a shiat about what you think.  He wanted revenge for his son's death, for which he felt OJ was responsible.  OJ acted like a nut and got thrown into jail ... over money.  He had heard someone had some of his sports memorabilia, most of which most athletes wouldn't care about.  But OJ had to sell his house, most of his trophies and sports stuff, and STILL couldn't keep Goldman's creditors at bay.  I do think that OJ wanted some quick cash, and so he went after the cut-rate scrub who was selling some of his stuff.  Else, he would have called the police.
 
2013-03-04 01:33:12 PM
content7.flixster.com
 
2013-03-04 01:34:02 PM

Bored Horde: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: numbone: [i83.photobucket.com image 270x360]

That should feel good when it's time to take the tape off.

Have you ever worn a duct-tape outfit?



Can't say that the opportunity has ever occurred where I would consider donning duct tape in lieu of underwear.
I'm not going to ever rule it out. I just don't see it in my future.
 
2013-03-04 01:37:08 PM

Close2TheEdge: I don't really get this whole "hide under the coat" thing.  She was judged innocent not guilty in her daughter's death.  She's never going to jail for that.  This is a bankruptcy hearing.  If I were her, I'd be walking straight up and chin high, daring people to comment.  What does she have to lose at this point?


FTFY.  Also I'd suspect she may have tried to change her appearance, which is why she's avoiding cameras.
 
2013-03-04 01:39:47 PM

Bored Horde: Have you ever worn a duct-tape outfit?  If you're hairless (which she assuredly is) then the problem isn't taking it off, but rather keeping it on.  The glue in high quality medical tape and bandages is much different than duct tape or electrical tape.


I can't speak for Ms. Anthony, but I for one do not want adhesive of any sort near my nipples. Also, I thought for sure that Google image search would find me a picture of a slice of pepperoni stuck to duct tape that I could use to illustrate the potential dangers of ripping the tape off. It did not
 
2013-03-04 01:40:50 PM
hdhale:

If they can't be in prison, you can always hound them to death and try to keep them on the brink of poverty.  Ron Fred Goldman has pursued OJ Simpson with the fury of a thousand sons suns, and so OJ eventually farked up and ended up in jail.

Except that I had about 5 minutes where I felt sorry for Ron Fred Goldman, and after that I pretty much wanted to see him get hit by a bus and I figured OJ was guilty was day 1.


FTFY.  Oh, and for hating on the dad of a guy who got murdered for trying to do something nice, fark you.
 
2013-03-04 01:40:54 PM

RangerTaylor: I want some better fat Casey pics.  I heard she gained hella weight.


Well come on, she's already lost the baby weight.

/all of it
 
2013-03-04 01:42:12 PM

whizbangthedirtfarmer: hdhale: Zenaida Gonzalez and former meter reader Roy Kronk both plan to sue Anthony. They're fighting the bankruptcy, because if Anthony is successful in going bankrupt, they're worried they'll lose their ability to sue her.

Because their lawsuits will clearly bring the little girl back from the dead.  WTF?

If they can't be in prison, you can always hound them to death and try to keep them on the brink of poverty.  Ron Goldman has pursued OJ Simpson with the fury of a thousand sons, and so OJ eventually farked up and ended up in jail.


Those lawsuits are for defamation; the plaintiffs want their names cleared.  They know Casey has no money and they have no legal interest in her daughter.
 
2013-03-04 01:42:16 PM
If someone sues Anthony all they can do is get a judgement against her. They can't create money out of thin air. It's not like Anthony will ever be worth much. I don't see any bright prospects for this woman's career. I guess people are hoping for Lifetime movie money or something.
 
2013-03-04 01:43:49 PM

Louisiana_Sitar_Club: [s21.postimage.org image 600x339]

Worst disguise ever.


Works for me
cdn.pastemagazine.com
 
2013-03-04 01:44:00 PM
Does anyone else think her trial lawyer banged her?
 
2013-03-04 01:44:58 PM

Close2TheEdge: I don't really get this whole "hide under the coat" thing.  She was judged innocent in her daughter's death.  She's never going to jail for that.  This is a bankruptcy hearing.  If I were her, I'd be walking straight up and chin high, daring people to comment.  What does she have to lose at this point?  She's already universally reviled.  It's not like cowering under the lawyer is going to garner any sympathy.


She's hiding from the cabbages, tomatoes, and bullets, not hoping to pass unrecognized.
 
2013-03-04 01:45:09 PM
www.troll.me
 
2013-03-04 01:46:26 PM

RoyHobbs22: Does anyone else think her trial lawyer banged her?


Gotta get paid somehow.
 
2013-03-04 01:50:16 PM

TheGogmagog: Thanks a lot for reminding us there was a real life lost.


oh noes, a real life lost. guess what, someone else you never knew just died. oops, there goes another. aaaand another. oh my, they just keep dying, more and more strangers are dropping off everywhere all the time. but i guess i should feel flattered that you feel my daughter's death is worth noting. personally, i'm over it.
 
2013-03-04 01:51:15 PM

TheGogmagog: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: numbone: [i83.photobucket.com image 270x360]

That should feel good when it's time to take the tape off.

[i48.tinypic.com image 400x377]

Unless you never need to take the tape off.....

PS. is that photo shopped?  I don't remember seeing that before.
PPS. was the daughter found with duct tape, or is that another case I'm thinking of?

/Thanks a lot for reminding us there was a real life lost.


There's apparently some artist selling duct-tape themed paintings of her, so I guess the inspiration had to come from somewhere.

www.faithmouse.com

This pops to a NSFW one.
 
2013-03-04 01:52:29 PM

Mija: I don't see any bright prospects for this woman's career.


Anal Gangbang Whores vol. 9
 
2013-03-04 01:53:12 PM
I should offer her sanctuary. She's cute, farks, parties, doesn't want kids (big plus!) and who would think to look for her in semi-rural Virginia?
 
2013-03-04 01:55:34 PM
She wasn't judged innocent, she was judged "not guilty".  i.e., Not enough evidence to convict her.  Nobody is asked to prove their innocence here.

There is a difference.
 
2013-03-04 01:56:40 PM

Lee451: I should offer her sanctuary. She's cute, farks, parties, doesn't want kids (big plus!) and who would think to look for her in semi-rural Virginia?


You know, I could almost write off that the whole thing with the kid was due to some freak accident and her just panicking from youth and inexperience, but she's an Ohio State fan, that's just a dealbreaker.
 
2013-03-04 01:57:51 PM

TuteTibiImperes: TheGogmagog: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: numbone: [i83.photobucket.com image 270x360]

That should feel good when it's time to take the tape off.

[i48.tinypic.com image 400x377]

Unless you never need to take the tape off.....

PS. is that photo shopped?  I don't remember seeing that before.
PPS. was the daughter found with duct tape, or is that another case I'm thinking of?

/Thanks a lot for reminding us there was a real life lost.

There's apparently some artist selling duct-tape themed paintings of her, so I guess the inspiration had to come from somewhere.

[www.faithmouse.com image 480x720]

This pops to a NSFW one.


Oh Dan Lacey, you magnificently weird person, you.
 
2013-03-04 01:59:53 PM

hdhale: Because their lawsuits will clearly bring the little girl back from the dead. WTF?


I don't think they are as concerned with bringing back the dead girl as they are for getting even with her trying to blame them for killing the girl.
 
2013-03-04 02:01:20 PM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: kingflower: Tot mom, tot mom, tot mom, tot mom, TOT MOM.


Ha!!
 
2013-03-04 02:04:53 PM
chriskohatsu.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-03-04 02:05:04 PM
Love this one.

i0.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-03-04 02:11:25 PM
people have a lot of balls to threaten and harass her. she was acquitted. that's supposed to mean something.
 
2013-03-04 02:16:26 PM
KrispyKritter: ...she was acquitted. that's supposed to mean something.

It means that the DA's office was inept.
 
2013-03-04 02:18:56 PM
Zenaida Gonzalez and former meter reader Roy Kronk both plan to sue Anthony. They're fighting the bankruptcy, because if Anthony is successful in going bankrupt, they're worried they'll lose their ability to sue her.

WTF are those people?  Should I be suing her too?
I.  .  .  I. . . .

moviesblog.mtv.com
 
2013-03-04 02:21:34 PM
I that read wrong
 
2013-03-04 02:22:01 PM
He looks like he's getting a little boobage there.
 
2013-03-04 02:24:53 PM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: KrispyKritter: ...she was acquitted. that's supposed to mean something.

It means that the DA's office was inept.


It means that idiots value popular media's opinion of who is and isn't guilty more than the results of careful deliberation of evidence by 12 jurors. The DA's office doesn't render the verdict, the defendant's peers do. If you can't deal with the fact that the evidence to convict simply didn't exist, you need to grow the hell up.
 
2013-03-04 02:40:34 PM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: KrispyKritter: ...she was acquitted. that's supposed to mean something.

It means that the DA's office was inept.


Just wait to see how inept you feel when they catch the real killer.
 
2013-03-04 02:40:40 PM

Calypsocookie: RangerTaylor: I want some better fat Casey pics.  I heard she gained hella weight.

Well come on, she's already lost the baby weight.

/all of it


Win.
 
2013-03-04 02:43:41 PM

scubamage: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: KrispyKritter: ...she was acquitted. that's supposed to mean something.

It means that the DA's office was inept.

It means that idiots value popular media's opinion of who is and isn't guilty more than the results of careful deliberation of evidence by 12 jurors. The DA's office doesn't render the verdict, the defendant's peers do. If you can't deal with the fact that the evidence to convict simply didn't exist, you need to grow the hell up.


At least we've moved past the "OMG The Jury was soooo stupid" stage.  Now we're to the "The DA was sooooo stupid" stage.  As Nancy Grace informs us that we should freak out about this less, the country can start to progress.
 
2013-03-04 02:47:57 PM

scubamage: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: KrispyKritter: ...she was acquitted. that's supposed to mean something.

It means that the DA's office was inept.

It means that idiots value popular media's opinion of who is and isn't guilty more than the results of careful deliberation of evidence by 12 jurors. The DA's office doesn't render the verdict, the defendant's peers do. If you can't deal with the fact that the evidence to convict simply didn't exist, you need to grow the hell up.


Go suck on mommas nipple a little more

Everyone knows what went down.

The fact they couldn't prove it does''t make her a good girl.
 
2013-03-04 02:54:18 PM

sloshed_again: The fact they couldn't prove it does''t make her a good girl.


The fact they couldn't prove it makes her innocent. Whether or not shes a dirty, nasty, slutty, tramp of a whore of a slut is irrelevent.
 
2013-03-04 02:57:09 PM

sloshed_again: scubamage: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: KrispyKritter: ...she was acquitted. that's supposed to mean something.

It means that the DA's office was inept.

It means that idiots value popular media's opinion of who is and isn't guilty more than the results of careful deliberation of evidence by 12 jurors. The DA's office doesn't render the verdict, the defendant's peers do. If you can't deal with the fact that the evidence to convict simply didn't exist, you need to grow the hell up.

Go suck on mommas nipple a little more

Everyone knows what went down.

The fact they couldn't prove it does''t make her a good girl.


And 600 years ago everyone thought the world was flat - and they were wrong. "Everyone" can be really farking stupid and blind sometimes. That's why we do our best to prevent mob rule.

We have our system because it's the best thing we've found so far. The evidence available wasn't enough to convict her on the charges, so she went free. She is innocent until proven guilty. Since she was not proven guilty, she is therefore innocent. Simple.

Just because Nancy Grace told you otherwise doesn't change the fact that the evidence simply isn't there. And if you think, "everybody knows..." is a good enough reason destroy someone's life, you really need to never vote because you lack even a basic understanding of how this country and its legal system work.

But please, if you somehow feel that your knowledge of the case via TV is somehow superior to that of the 12 jurors who actually viewed every shred if evidence in the case in the first person in that courtroom and sat through every minute of testimony, do go on. I'd love to see how you can rationalize that.
 
2013-03-04 03:00:56 PM

kumanoki: sloshed_again: The fact they couldn't prove it does''t make her a good girl.

The fact they couldn't prove it makes her innocent. Whether or not shes a dirty, nasty, slutty, tramp of a whore of a slut is irrelevent.


Absolutely not. It makes her not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There's a big difference.
 
2013-03-04 03:06:43 PM

namegoeshere: kumanoki: sloshed_again: The fact they couldn't prove it does''t make her a good girl.

The fact they couldn't prove it makes her innocent. Whether or not shes a dirty, nasty, slutty, tramp of a whore of a slut is irrelevent.

Absolutely not. It makes her not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There's a big difference.


True. Not guilty /= Innocent.
However, 'not guilty beyond a resonable doubt' has nothing to dow with whethershes a dirty, nasty, slutty, tramp of a whore of a slut. I just want to make youre everyone gets that.
 
2013-03-04 03:08:53 PM

namegoeshere: kumanoki: sloshed_again: The fact they couldn't prove it does''t make her a good girl.

The fact they couldn't prove it makes her innocent. Whether or not shes a dirty, nasty, slutty, tramp of a whore of a slut is irrelevent.

Absolutely not. It makes her not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There's a big difference.


Wrong. The presumption of innocence is a legal right. The burden of proving her guilty lies on the accuser (the DA). They failed at proving her guilty, therefore, she remains innocent. The defendant is always assumed to be innocent up until the accuser has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that that fundamental assumption is wrong.

She is innocent.
 
2013-03-04 03:11:47 PM
Casey Anthony comes out of hiding in Tampa courtroom for bankruptcy hearing

When I first read the headline I thought she'd been in the judge's chambers all this time.
 
2013-03-04 03:22:45 PM

scubamage: sloshed_again: scubamage: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: KrispyKritter: ...she was acquitted. that's supposed to mean something.

It means that the DA's office was inept.

It means that idiots value popular media's opinion of who is and isn't guilty more than the results of careful deliberation of evidence by 12 jurors. The DA's office doesn't render the verdict, the defendant's peers do. If you can't deal with the fact that the evidence to convict simply didn't exist, you need to grow the hell up.

Go suck on mommas nipple a little more

Everyone knows what went down.

The fact they couldn't prove it does''t make her a good girl.

And 600 years ago everyone thought the world was flat - and they were wrong. "Everyone" can be really farking stupid and blind sometimes. That's why we do our best to prevent mob rule.

We have our system because it's the best thing we've found so far. The evidence available wasn't enough to convict her on the charges, so she went free. She is innocent until proven guilty. Since she was not proven guilty, she is therefore innocent. Simple.

Just because Nancy Grace told you otherwise doesn't change the fact that the evidence simply isn't there. And if you think, "everybody knows..." is a good enough reason destroy someone's life, you really need to never vote because you lack even a basic understanding of how this country and its legal system work.

But please, if you somehow feel that your knowledge of the case via TV is somehow superior to that of the 12 jurors who actually viewed every shred if evidence in the case in the first person in that courtroom and sat through every minute of testimony, do go on. I'd love to see how you can rationalize that.


"Jurors who viewed every shred of evidence in the case"?

The jurors saw LESS evidence than you or I. Not more. One of the jobs of the defense team is to get as much "evidence" as possible thrown out. The jury sees an abridged version of the events.

I'm not saying its a horrible system, I'm just saying that if you think the jury is seeing everything, you are very mistaken.
 
2013-03-04 03:22:51 PM
Wow, people white-knighting this chick.
 
2013-03-04 03:27:02 PM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Wow, people white-knighting this chick.


Not white-knighting anyone. Trying to get idiots to understand how the legal system works. It could be you, the guy down the road, hitler, whoever.

There is always a presumption of innocence. If the state doesn't prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt, they remain innocent.
It's not.that.farking.hard.to.understand.

VespaGuy: scubamage: sloshed_again: scubamage: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: KrispyKritter: ...she was acquitted. that's supposed to mean something.

It means that the DA's office was inept.

It means that idiots value popular media's opinion of who is and isn't guilty more than the results of careful deliberation of evidence by 12 jurors. The DA's office doesn't render the verdict, the defendant's peers do. If you can't deal with the fact that the evidence to convict simply didn't exist, you need to grow the hell up.

Go suck on mommas nipple a little more

Everyone knows what went down.

The fact they couldn't prove it does''t make her a good girl.

And 600 years ago everyone thought the world was flat - and they were wrong. "Everyone" can be really farking stupid and blind sometimes. That's why we do our best to prevent mob rule.

We have our system because it's the best thing we've found so far. The evidence available wasn't enough to convict her on the charges, so she went free. She is innocent until proven guilty. Since she was not proven guilty, she is therefore innocent. Simple.

Just because Nancy Grace told you otherwise doesn't change the fact that the evidence simply isn't there. And if you think, "everybody knows..." is a good enough reason destroy someone's life, you really need to never vote because you lack even a basic understanding of how this country and its legal system work.

But please, if you somehow feel that your knowledge of the case via TV is somehow superior to that of the 12 jurors who actually viewed every shred if evidence in the case in the first person in that courtroom and sat through every minute of testimony, do go on. I'd love to see how you can rationalize that.

"Jurors who viewed every shred of evidence in the case"?

The jurors saw LESS evidence than you or I. Not more. One of the jobs of the defense team is to get as much "evidence" as possible thrown out. The jury sees an abridged version of the events.

I'm not saying its a horrible system, I ...


You know how I can tell you've never sat through a criminal trial?

/interned for 2 years as a legal assistant while in pre-law.
//Quit because I didn't have the stomach for some of the things defense attorneys needed me to do.
 
2013-03-04 03:29:51 PM
Why does Casey Anthony look like Jared Leto?
 
2013-03-04 03:38:47 PM

scubamage: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Wow, people white-knighting this chick.

Not white-knighting anyone. Trying to get idiots to understand how the legal system works. It could be you, the guy down the road, hitler, whoever.

There is always a presumption of innocence. If the state doesn't prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt, they remain innocent.
It's not.that.farking.hard.to.understand.


She was found not guilty. It does not mean that she did not kill her daughter.
If I was on the jury, I probably would have voted not to convict also. That would be based on the case presented, not on my gut feeling that she was the one to kill her daughter.
It's not.that.farking.hard.to.understand.
 
2013-03-04 03:42:01 PM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: scubamage: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Wow, people white-knighting this chick.

Not white-knighting anyone. Trying to get idiots to understand how the legal system works. It could be you, the guy down the road, hitler, whoever.

There is always a presumption of innocence. If the state doesn't prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt, they remain innocent.
It's not.that.farking.hard.to.understand.

She was found not guilty. It does not mean that she did not kill her daughter.
If I was on the jury, I probably would have voted not to convict also. That would be based on the case presented, not on my gut feeling that she was the one to kill her daughter.
It's not.that.farking.hard.to.understand.


The real failure was the prosecutor not bringing lesser charges as fall-backs.  I have a feeling they could have gotten a conviction for criminal negligence if they'd tried for it.
 
2013-03-04 03:44:09 PM
i586.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-04 03:52:13 PM

namegoeshere: kumanoki: sloshed_again: The fact they couldn't prove it does''t make her a good girl.

The fact they couldn't prove it makes her innocent. Whether or not shes a dirty, nasty, slutty, tramp of a whore of a slut is irrelevent.

Absolutely not. It makes her not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There's a big difference.


In US Law, as previously pointed out, Not Guilty is the same as Innocent.

In Scottish Law there is a verdict of "Not Proven" that is seperate from "Not Guilty", but the US legal
system does not recognize that distinction.
 
2013-03-04 04:01:28 PM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: scubamage: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Wow, people white-knighting this chick.

Not white-knighting anyone. Trying to get idiots to understand how the legal system works. It could be you, the guy down the road, hitler, whoever.

There is always a presumption of innocence. If the state doesn't prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt, they remain innocent.
It's not.that.farking.hard.to.understand.

She was found not guilty. It does not mean that she did not kill her daughter.
If I was on the jury, I probably would have voted not to convict also. That would be based on the case presented, not on my gut feeling that she was the one to kill her daughter.
It's not.that.farking.hard.to.understand.


But it is irrelevant what you think.  It's irrelevant what the rest of the world thinks.  A court of law found her not-guilty of the death of her daughter.  Yes, therefore she is legally innocent.  If you believe in a higher power that will ultimately judge her, then you can be comforted that she is probably not innocent.  Fortunately, our legal system doesn't work that way.  The DA failed to convince a jury of her guilt.  Sorry if that irritates you, but that's the fact.

Not white knighting her.  I think she deserves a lifetime of pain and torment.  But someday, you might be the one in court, and it would really suck if the influence of Nancy Grace was the one who got you put away for life.
 
2013-03-04 04:09:58 PM

Close2TheEdge: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: scubamage: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Wow, people white-knighting this chick.

Not white-knighting anyone. Trying to get idiots to understand how the legal system works. It could be you, the guy down the road, hitler, whoever.

There is always a presumption of innocence. If the state doesn't prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt, they remain innocent.
It's not.that.farking.hard.to.understand.

She was found not guilty. It does not mean that she did not kill her daughter.
If I was on the jury, I probably would have voted not to convict also. That would be based on the case presented, not on my gut feeling that she was the one to kill her daughter.
It's not.that.farking.hard.to.understand.

But it is irrelevant what you think.  It's irrelevant what the rest of the world thinks.  A court of law found her not-guilty of the death of her daughter.  Yes, therefore she is legally innocent.  If you believe in a higher power that will ultimately judge her, then you can be comforted that she is probably not innocent.  Fortunately, our legal system doesn't work that way.  The DA failed to convince a jury of her guilt.  Sorry if that irritates you, but that's the fact.

Not white knighting her.  I think she deserves a lifetime of pain and torment.  But someday, you might be the one in court, and it would really suck if the influence of Nancy Grace was the one who got you put away for life.


Read my farking post. I never said that the jury was wrong.
 
2013-03-04 04:14:44 PM

scubamage: namegoeshere: kumanoki: sloshed_again: The fact they couldn't prove it does''t make her a good girl.

The fact they couldn't prove it makes her innocent. Whether or not shes a dirty, nasty, slutty, tramp of a whore of a slut is irrelevent.

Absolutely not. It makes her not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There's a big difference.

Wrong. The presumption of innocence is a legal right. The burden of proving her guilty lies on the accuser (the DA). They failed at proving her guilty, therefore, she remains innocent. The defendant is always assumed to be innocent up until the accuser has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that that fundamental assumption is wrong.

She is innocent.


Just because a court of law doesn't find her guilty does not mean shes "innocent". She is only innocent in the eyes of the court, that hardly translates that she didn't commit the crime. I have no opinion one way or another, but by your logic anyone that kills someone and never gets caught is innocent.. hardly the case.
 
2013-03-04 04:23:59 PM
If you're a US citizen and you think she needs to be punished for what you think she may have done even though she was found not guilty by a jury of her peers then kindly leave my country.

/unfamiliar with any details of the case and that doesn't farking matter
 
2013-03-04 04:26:52 PM

scubamage: namegoeshere: kumanoki: sloshed_again: The fact they couldn't prove it does''t make her a good girl.

The fact they couldn't prove it makes her innocent. Whether or not shes a dirty, nasty, slutty, tramp of a whore of a slut is irrelevent.

Absolutely not. It makes her not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There's a big difference.

Wrong. The presumption of innocence is a legal right. The burden of proving her guilty lies on the accuser (the DA). They failed at proving her guilty, therefore, she remains innocent. The defendant is always assumed to be innocent up until the accuser has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that that fundamental assumption is wrong.

She is innocent.


The presumption of innocence is a legal tenet. She can not be legally punished for that crime. However, we, the public, are under no such restriction. We do not need to believe her innocent just because the court found her not guilty.
 
2013-03-04 04:28:02 PM

ifly4fun: Just because a court of law doesn't find her guilty does not mean shes "innocent". She is only innocent in the eyes of the court, that hardly translates that she didn't commit the crime. I have no opinion one way or another, but by your logic anyone that kills someone and never gets caught is innocent.. hardly the case.


Unfortunately, that's all that we have though. If there is no evidence that proves her guilt she is innocent. Without this evidence, why are people saying that she did it? Does everyone but the court have some secret knowledge of the events in question?

If someone kills and there's no evidence, how do we know they have killed? You can believe or guess or whatever, but if there is no evidence then you're just spouting air.
 
2013-03-04 04:30:20 PM

namegoeshere: However, we, the public, are under no such restriction. We do not need to believe her innocent just because the court found her not guilty.


Bingo. But, saying that someone did a crime with no evidence is slander, if I'm not mistaken (hey, I'm obviously no lawyer, so it's likely). You can try to punish them for a supposed crime, but you'd be committing a crime by doing that, correct?
 
2013-03-04 04:33:55 PM

moto-geek: namegoeshere: However, we, the public, are under no such restriction. We do not need to believe her innocent just because the court found her not guilty.

Bingo. But, saying that someone did a crime with no evidence is slander, if I'm not mistaken (hey, I'm obviously no lawyer, so it's likely). You can try to punish them for a supposed crime, but you'd be committing a crime by doing that, correct?


In most states defamation is not a criminal violation, it can be a civil one but she is going to have to prove monetary damages. Since everyone thinks she did it, good luck.

/I think
//IANAL
///I ANAL too every chance I get
 
2013-03-04 04:36:19 PM

namegoeshere: scubamage: namegoeshere: kumanoki: sloshed_again: The fact they couldn't prove it does''t make her a good girl.

The fact they couldn't prove it makes her innocent. Whether or not shes a dirty, nasty, slutty, tramp of a whore of a slut is irrelevent.

Absolutely not. It makes her not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There's a big difference.

Wrong. The presumption of innocence is a legal right. The burden of proving her guilty lies on the accuser (the DA). They failed at proving her guilty, therefore, she remains innocent. The defendant is always assumed to be innocent up until the accuser has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that that fundamental assumption is wrong.

She is innocent.

The presumption of innocence is a legal tenet. She can not be legally punished for that crime. However, we, the public, are under no such restriction. We do not need to believe her innocent just because the court found her not guilty.


That's fine.  As long as the court system never devolves to the point where public viewpoint becomes somehow relevant.  If it ever does, then we are all truly farked.  And does it really justify harassment of her after she has been tried in court?  I don't personally think so.  I can't help but wonder what type of person took time out of their life to hold a "How much was your baby worth?" sign up as Case Anthony was being brought into a bankruptcy hearing.  Jesus Christ, get a farking life people.
 
2013-03-04 04:39:52 PM

moto-geek: namegoeshere: However, we, the public, are under no such restriction. We do not need to believe her innocent just because the court found her not guilty.

Bingo. But, saying that someone did a crime with no evidence is slander, if I'm not mistaken (hey, I'm obviously no lawyer, so it's likely). You can try to punish them for a supposed crime, but you'd be committing a crime by doing that, correct?


I'm not for the active vigilante justice. I think shunning, which is totally legal in all fifty states, is the best punishment for this whole horrible family. Ignore them completely. They do not exist. Them and the WBC.

As for slander, I don't think you could raise a slander case if, based on a person's interpretation of the evidence, that person was of the opinion that she was guilty. It's not like I'm saying that Glen Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990, for which there was absolutely no concrete evidence whatsoever. So we really can't even speculate as to his guilt.
 
2013-03-04 04:41:02 PM
Close2TheEdge:  I can't help but wonder what type of person took time out of their life to hold a "How much was your baby worth?" sign up as Case Anthony was being brought into a bankruptcy hearing. Jesus Christ, get a farking life people.

This is Nancy Grace's target audience.
 
2013-03-04 04:47:49 PM
So let's see the picture, asshole.
 
2013-03-04 04:51:22 PM

moto-geek: namegoeshere: However, we, the public, are under no such restriction. We do not need to believe her innocent just because the court found her not guilty.

Bingo. But, saying that someone did a crime with no evidence is slander, if I'm not mistaken (hey, I'm obviously no lawyer, so it's likely). You can try to punish them for a supposed crime, but you'd be committing a crime by doing that, correct?


As a broke woman who could easily prove slander in this case (assuming not-guilty = innocent), why isn't she pressing on with any slander lawsuits?
 
2013-03-04 05:35:56 PM
I can't think of a good metaphor, so I'll just say that I'd like to have sex with her.
 
2013-03-04 05:45:01 PM

scubamage: You know how I can tell you've never sat through a criminal trial?


Well, you'd be wrong. But no, I don't know how you can tell. Can you elaborate?

I believe I expressed that all evidence - including that which is otherwise presented to the public - is not always presented or available to the jury. Are you claiming that it is?

 
2013-03-04 06:19:11 PM
If only abortions were legal, Casey wouldn't have had to go through this whole mess; she could've just got the ol' roto-rooter and kept partying like... well like she did anyway...

/Meh, she's still a MILF (Murderer I'd like to Fark)
//Blah blah not guilty blah blah
///who the hell else would've killed that kid in that manner, and why isn't she looking for the "real killers" like OJ or the Ramsays?
 
2013-03-04 07:02:12 PM

moto-geek: ifly4fun: Just because a court of law doesn't find her guilty does not mean shes "innocent". She is only innocent in the eyes of the court, that hardly translates that she didn't commit the crime. I have no opinion one way or another, but by your logic anyone that kills someone and never gets caught is innocent.. hardly the case.

Unfortunately, that's all that we have though. If there is no evidence that proves her guilt she is innocent. Without this evidence, why are people saying that she did it? Does everyone but the court have some secret knowledge of the events in question?

If someone kills and there's no evidence, how do we know they have killed? You can believe or guess or whatever, but if there is no evidence then you're just spouting air.


Not guilty you say.

I thought she ran off and left a car trunk that had forensic evidence of human decay in it.

My bad.
 
2013-03-04 07:08:18 PM

I_C_Weener: [i586.photobucket.com image 500x359]


i586.photobucket.com
Best BJ he ever had I'll bet
 
2013-03-04 07:22:26 PM
Bankrupt? What about her book and movie deals?
 
2013-03-04 11:17:18 PM
Dat ass.  Tap it I would.
 
2013-03-05 02:12:29 AM

Prank Call of Cthulhu: [i1120.photobucket.com image 400x321]


I am such a terrible person. Still giggling. Terrible person. Terrible, terrible. Snort.
 
2013-03-05 02:35:54 AM
 scubamage: Wrong. The presumption of innocence is a legal right. The burden of proving her guilty lies on the accuser (the DA). They failed at proving her guilty, therefore, she remains innocent. The defendant is always assumed to be innocent up until the accuser has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that that fundamental assumption is wrong.


She is innocent.


lol...you are extremely confused.  What are you, 15?
 
2013-03-05 02:44:59 AM

DjangoStonereaver: In US Law, as previously pointed out, Not Guilty is the same as Innocent.


Is that so?
 
2013-03-05 02:47:41 AM
Playboy calling......
 
2013-03-05 02:57:12 AM

namegoeshere: The presumption of innocence is a legal tenet. She can not be legally punished for that crime. However, we, the public, are under no such restriction. We do not need to believe her innocent just because the court found her not guilty.


Bingo.  This statement is 100% technically correct - the best kind of correct!  Thank you for injecting some sanity into a "debate" with a bunch of people who apparently like to put their thinking skills on hold just because a jury determined something that may have been legally plausible, but that even those jurors will readily admit is probably factually wrong and makes them sick to their stomachs to have voted to acquit.

And as to all the GED lawyers out there who think that "not guilty" = "innocent", and also want to rob the rest of us thinking people from holding an informed opinion outside the courtroom (my informed opinion:  she's guilty as hell of murdering her little girl) - educate yourselves people.  Please.  You might be on a jury yourselves one day, and I hope that you know what you're doing by then.
 
2013-03-05 03:04:04 AM

Close2TheEdge: As long as the court system never devolves to the point where public viewpoint becomes somehow relevant. If it ever does, then we are all truly farked.


What a non-starter of a discussion, since our court system is specifically designed to negate this very thing.

Close2TheEdge: And does it really justify harassment of her after she has been tried in court? I don't personally think so.


Who here stated that it was ok to harass her, or to physically punish her in any way?

Close2TheEdge: I can't help but wonder what type of person took time out of their life to hold a "How much was your baby worth?" sign up as Case Anthony was being brought into a bankruptcy hearing.


Please tell me you don't think this exercise of free speech rights is an example of "harassment"?

Seems like you're worried about a whole bunch of stuff that doesn't exist, and isn't in danger of becoming so.  What's the deal?  Are you a little uncomfortable defending this ghoul of a human being?  I would be too, which is why I don't.
 
2013-03-05 03:09:43 AM

kumanoki: namegoeshere: kumanoki: sloshed_again: The fact they couldn't prove it does''t make her a good girl.

The fact they couldn't prove it makes her innocent. Whether or not shes a dirty, nasty, slutty, tramp of a whore of a slut is irrelevent.

Absolutely not. It makes her not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There's a big difference.

True. Not guilty /= Innocent.
However, 'not guilty beyond a resonable doubt' has nothing to dow with whethershes a dirty, nasty, slutty, tramp of a whore of a slut. I just want to make youre everyone gets that.


If she starts out innocent and isn't proven guilty, then she's still innocent.  The jury's verdict of "not guilty" means only, "We do not find her guilty."  It doesn't change her from innocent to "not guilty."

"Innocent, dirty, nasty, slutty" gives me a boner for da crazy. "Tramp of a whore of a slut" sounds like we're insulting her mother and grandma, too!
 
2013-03-05 03:13:52 AM
I wanna see Casey, Octomom, Lindsay Lohan, Kristen Stewart, and the former Miss Teen USA  Delaware in an orgy porno.
 
2013-03-05 05:47:08 AM

karmachameleon: DjangoStonereaver: In US Law, as previously pointed out, Not Guilty is the same as Innocent.

Is that so?


If you're taking legal advice from newspaper style guides, then you get what you deserve.
 
2013-03-05 07:12:46 AM

BarkingUnicorn: I wanna see Casey, Octomom, Lindsay Lohan, Kristen Stewart, and the former Miss Teen USA  Delaware in an orgy porno.


miss teen

that sounds sexy
how old is she?  only 14 you say!??
 
2013-03-05 07:21:47 AM

DjangoStonereaver: karmachameleon: DjangoStonereaver: In US Law, as previously pointed out, Not Guilty is the same as Innocent.

Is that so?

If you're taking legal advice from newspaper style guides, then you get what you deserve.


Are you saying that the assertion that "not guilty" is not the same as "innocent" is wrong?  Or are you just smearing this source of that commonly known information for the fun of it?  Of many, many common references, I chose this one because it mentioned Anthony's case specifically, and being a style guide, it helped drive the point home that "innocent" and "not guilty" mean two different things.  If you don't like this reference, go look up another one - they're easy to find and they all say the same thing.

I think many of you are confusing the presumption of innocence with the jury verdict of "not guilty", which simply means that the prosecution has not proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt, not that the defendant is innocent of the crime they were accused of.  Clearly, the statement, "Not Guilty = Innocent" is absurd on the face of it.  It is easier if you think of "Not Guilty" as "Acquitted" instead; those two phrases actually do mean the same thing.  A person can commit a crime and still be acquitted; it has happened before and will happen again.  I firmly believe, based on the evidence, that Casey Anthony committed this crime.  I can also understand why the jury acquitted her, but even they have stated, to a person, that they believe she is probably not innocent.
 
2013-03-05 07:23:34 AM

DjangoStonereaver: If you're taking legal advice from newspaper style guides, then you get what you deserve.


Here, I found a source that I believe even you should be able to understand.
 
2013-03-05 07:34:31 AM

karmachameleon: DjangoStonereaver: If you're taking legal advice from newspaper style guides, then you get what you deserve.

Here, I found a source that I believe even you should be able to understand.


I like how that source's final paragraph actually demolishes your beef, and states nearly verbatim my
assertion from up thread:

So why do people say a person was found innocent? In many judicial systems, anyway, once you're found not guilty of a crime, you can't be tried again for that same crime. Under the law (in America's case the Fifth Amendment), you are protected against double jeopardy. So, once you're found not guilty, you're as good as innocent, at least in the eyes of the law.

Protip:  it helps to actually read something you want to try to use as a rebuttal.
 
2013-03-05 10:23:07 AM

DjangoStonereaver: karmachameleon: DjangoStonereaver: If you're taking legal advice from newspaper style guides, then you get what you deserve.

Here, I found a source that I believe even you should be able to understand.

I like how that source's final paragraph actually demolishes your beef, and states nearly verbatim my
assertion from up thread:

So why do people say a person was found innocent? In many judicial systems, anyway, once you're found not guilty of a crime, you can't be tried again for that same crime. Under the law (in America's case the Fifth Amendment), you are protected against double jeopardy. So, once you're found not guilty, you're as good as innocent, at least in the eyes of the law.

Protip:  it helps to actually read something you want to try to use as a rebuttal.


(eyeroll)  It helps to actually read for comprehension, doofus.  That last paragraph doesn't mean what you seem to think it means, and:  "If the judge or jury are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, then they must deliver a verdict ofnot guilty. This does not mean that the defendant isinnocent. It means only that the prosecution did not convince the judge or jury beyond a reasonable doubt."  But believe what you want, it's no skin off my nose.
 
2013-03-05 10:43:00 AM

karmachameleon: DjangoStonereaver: karmachameleon: DjangoStonereaver: If you're taking legal advice from newspaper style guides, then you get what you deserve.

Here, I found a source that I believe even you should be able to understand.

I like how that source's final paragraph actually demolishes your beef, and states nearly verbatim my
assertion from up thread:

So why do people say a person was found innocent? In many judicial systems, anyway, once you're found not guilty of a crime, you can't be tried again for that same crime. Under the law (in America's case the Fifth Amendment), you are protected against double jeopardy. So, once you're found not guilty, you're as good as innocent, at least in the eyes of the law.

Protip:  it helps to actually read something you want to try to use as a rebuttal.

(eyeroll)  It helps to actually read for comprehension, doofus.  That last paragraph doesn't mean what you seem to think it means, and:  "If the judge or jury are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, then they must deliver a verdict ofnot guilty. This does not mean that the defendant isinnocent. It means only that the prosecution did not convince the judge or jury beyond a reasonable doubt."  But believe what you want, it's no skin off my nose.


You're one of those Sovreign Citizen types, aren't you?

/Or an English major.
 
2013-03-05 11:06:10 AM

moto-geek: ifly4fun: Just because a court of law doesn't find her guilty does not mean shes "innocent". She is only innocent in the eyes of the court, that hardly translates that she didn't commit the crime. I have no opinion one way or another, but by your logic anyone that kills someone and never gets caught is innocent.. hardly the case.

Unfortunately, that's all that we have though. If there is no evidence that proves her guilt she is innocent. Without this evidence, why are people saying that she did it? Does everyone but the court have some secret knowledge of the events in question?

If someone kills and there's no evidence, how do we know they have killed? You can believe or guess or whatever, but if there is no evidence then you're just spouting air.


8/10.  Nicely done.
 
2013-03-05 12:59:25 PM
I just want to point out the awesomely bad courtroom sketches.

i45.tinypic.com

i47.tinypic.com

i47.tinypic.com
 
Displayed 123 of 123 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report