Category: the Rant Board
Ugh ... idk. I'm mad today, even madder than usual about this skank.
Casey has a beautiful 3 year old little girl. The baby turns up missing, and she doesn't report it until her mom makes her, which is 31 days after the fact. During those 31 days, she's seen partying, getting tatoos, and joining hot body contests and crap. Her story to the police: "My daughter was kidnapped by the nanny."
The police later find out, after going on a wild goose chase looking for the nanny, that the nanny never existed. Casey's story then?: "She drowned in the swimming pool out back, and the reason I lied and partied all this time without calling the police is because my father sexually molested me as a child, raising me to lie and cover up tromma."
Now she's on trial. Her story is that her father, the molester, found the baby in the pool and told her to hide it from police, to lie about the nanny, and make everyone look for her missing daughter. The bitch has zero emotion while she's looking at what she put her family through, and she has no emotion when she's looking at her little girl on the video tapes that are shown in cort, or the baby's remains which were found a mile away from her house.
I don't care if this pisses you people off or not, but I need to vent. I hate this woman and she should rot and burn and fry for the rest of her miserable existance. The defense rests its case yesterday with absolutely nothing to show, she didn't testify. Good, the bitch is a liar.
Thanks much.
Jessie
What the hell? then if she shows no emotion, that tells the jury something, that she did do what she did. And the jury, I think their fucked up, how can they say that they don't have any evidence when its clearly stated? They have the stuff from the police,and things like that. I agree too, she should burn for that.
Thank you, exactly what I'm saying, just the fact that she's all stone face ... idk. The only time she showed any emotion whatsoever is when they were talking about her.
here here, Jessie. I feel passionately about this, too.
Has the jury come back with a verdict yet?
They're predicted to come up with a verdict some time this coming week. The prosicution just finished their rebutal case today and closing arguments are sunday morning. Then deliberation. I honestly didn't think that the jury would give her the death penalty, but after this rebutal I think it's possible. The prosicution proved that Casey made those computer searches about chlorophorm and neck breaking and all that crap. That brings back premeditation, since the searches were made 3 months before the baby's death. I'm gonna be on edge for the next week or so.
May she rot in hell. That is all I have to say.
Not Guilty for the murder of her daughter.
Rebelwoman, I watched exactly one account of this case: that of 48 HOURS and Maureen Maher. It was all I needed.
The little bitch came up with the nanny's name, a fairly common one in Latino communities, "Zenaida Gonzalez" reading a visitors' log book in a friend's apartment complex, pulled her name & address from that book.
Orange County Sherriff's cleared Ms. Gonzalez of any involvement with Caylee Anthony thru a visit to the apartment, where she has her own 6 kids. However, her notoriety being falsely named got her thrown out of her apartment & a pariah.
Someone struggling is penalized, someone who had a legal team smart enough to convince her to show up in court in a lacy blouse with minimal makeup--a common legal strategy with female defendents to make them more sympathetic, no power suit blue or makeovers, folks---walks. May C.A. be the pariah of Orange County, Florida, a marked woman who can't find employment or any opportunities the average person has.
Well I'm still stunned at the verdict, not guilty on all major charges. Basically the jury is saying that she has nothing to do with the death of her daughter, and the only thing she's guilty of is lying to the police. That raises lots of questions: Well how do they explain why she lied to the police, dismissing molestation which we all know now is not true. Or, if she didn't do it, who did?
Well I want everyone to understand one important thing.
Being not guilty isn't the same as being innocent. Just because she's not guilty doesn't mean she didn't do it, it means they couldn't prove beyond a reasonnable doubt that she did.
I think that prosecution did the best job they could with what they had. They did a great job, but the evidence weren't strong enough to link her directly to a murder. That jury isn't allowed to convict a person without reasonable doubt from the prosecution, and that poor baby was lying in that swamp for 6 straight months. She was a skeleton when they found her, there wasn't much to work with. I think they did the best they could, and I hope she rots in hell when her time comes. She'll have a higher cort to answer to pretty soon.
May Caylee anthony rest in peace, and some way or another let that family get closure and justice be served. That's all I can say. She is a free woman for now, hope she enjoys it.
Same as they couldn't prove beyond reasonable doubt that O.J. Simpson killed his wife and her new boyfriend the way we all know he did back in '94.
This is O.J 2, they say. But she'll get the boot in her ass once she gets hit with all these lawsutes they're threatening. Just like O.J.
Well, I didn't watch the trial or anything, but it certainly does seem as though she did it. If there was a really christian hell, she would go to it. As it is, I hope when she dies, she gets reincarnated and dies a bunch of times in various agonizing ways. See how she likes that.
Until last night, I had thought maybe in a parallel universe I would have been, or would be, a forensic scientist.
That is, until I watched a bunch of tapes on Youtube with cops having to manage the search with an appalling amount of deliberate misinformation. I probably watched about a dozen videos of their tapes, and every time they were taken in by something, so was I. I put myself in the situation as though I hadn't seen the trial tapes or known anything about the case.
C.S.I and its predecessors make forensics look very attractive to puzzle-solvers like myself but after watching what I watched last night, I realized there are some serious elements there we don't know.
One thing that does disturb me about this is we watched on Fox, where an ex-governor was saying how hard it is to commit a mother to death penalty for murdering her children. He didn't say parent, not father, but mother.
His dancing around the issue, and some people's vitriolic bombardment, demonstrate the primitive notion people have of mother as a deified individual with some supposedly natural instinct for nurturing. There is no such instinct in humans. You've got very few instincts when you're born: suck, cry, and gasp - at least until you learn to regulate your breathing.
Human mothers and fathers who supposedly act on maternal or paternal instinct are actually making very deliberate choices, rather than operating based on wiring and exposure. Any new father will know that you as the man get a lot more access to, and education about how to care for, your newborn in the first few hours than the mother does. She's busy expelling afterbirth, recovering, and hopefully regaining some semblance of physical constitution after the ordeal. Mothers who are separated from the young for extended periods of time are no more competent than any other average person when it comes to taking care of them. You learn it all, male or female, because you're a human and not a bird or a wolf. In fact, many women have felt unjustifiably guilty and justifiably resentful that they are expected to "automatically know" how to care for a new infant, toddler, or even a teenager for that matter.
Historically, mothers are more likely, not less, to commit infanticide, because they had greater access to the offspring. In modern contexts, that translates to less responsibility, based on 'issues' or 'being burned out and exhausted', which is a pretty common human condition.
All I'm saying is one cannot assume a man to be more likely to commit infanticide and a woman to be less likely, based on some supposed natural wiring.
So while anyone can appreciate the governor's statement about committing another human to the death penalty, we can't make decisions either vitriolic or anesthetized around some sort of fictitious deification of maternal instincts. Those are wishful thinking, a figment of our imaginations, and history demonstrates rather a glaring opposite. Infanticide among lower life forms is relatively rare: mothers actually have a protective instinct. They don't choose to protect their offspring the way a human mother chooses: they just do it out of a drive.
But if and when a human mother protects and cares for her offspring it is entirely by choice. So honestly, I think the prosecution did it right: demonstrating individual choices that were made.
So when we look at mothers who allegedly kill their offspring, I think we shouldn't look at it as some sort of unnatural behavior, but a distinctly natural, base and inhuman behavior. The same as we would some sort of abandonment or infanticide by a father. If you still want to believe all female humans have a maternal instinct, I hope you get a chance to visit a birthing or baby ward at a hospital when one of your relatives or friends has recently given birth. You'll note there is a serious amount of instruction going on. More formalized than in primitive times with mothers, aunts, sisters, and other women standing around assisting and coaching.
And when babies are brought home from the hospital for the first time, both mother and father are equally unprepared. It only used to appear like the mother supposedly knew by instinct, because she had the greatest amount of exposure.
It's rediculous, and it's kuz she's a young mother who looked cute and sweet. And they wonder why all the people who are on her side are men. Hmm ... let us chew on this a moment ... ah yes. Her fucking tatas were in full ass view during the trial! Full, ass, view! She got off kuz she's a cute, attractive, woman! Unfair, unjust, and totally rediculous.
Rebelwoman, don't forget her attorneys' help. Some criminal defense attorneys keep changes of clothing in their office for their clients. Is a male defendant going to inspire more sympathy in a low key, respectable suit or orange prison scrubs? Females are coached especially to avoid bold colors, heavy makeup, complicated hair and stick with the pastel colored blouse, hushed tones and minimal makeup that was visible. I'm afraid I didn't notice her, um, tatas, but especially when the defendant is a mom I'm sure the attorney wouldn't encourage 'em to show up in the latest, shall we say, risque outfit or bare her mammaries.
haha oh I know, and they do that to win the support of dumb asses who are too easily won over by looks, men in particular. Ugh
Well I was on youtube a few weeks ago, and just looked up her video diary! She does not deserve a computer. And they say she got hacked. Personally, it's not cool to hack into a computer, but the person Cassey should not have privviledges to skype or nothing.
She's not innocent in my book.