At 7/7/11 10:12 PM, RacistBassist wrote:At 7/7/11 09:17 PM, TheKlown wrote: so you know she just happened to change her story like 6 times, gave fake leads to the cops, blamed her own father and looked up uses for chloroform.She's lied about shit that's irrelevant to the case. Get that through your skull. Lying to cops does not equal guilt. Being a pathological liar does not automatically means you did it. I've looked up chloroform. Oh shit, that means I must have done it!
Right, because the location of your missing daughter (who is later found to be murdered) is completely irrelevant to the case of what happened to her child.
She didn't just look up chloroform she researched how to make it and the police found chloroform in her trunk. The only reason it was ignored was because the defense found an "expert" who claimed that we still don't know what chemicals a dead body releases and claimed it was possible the chloroform was the result of decomposition, so basically they argued that it was the dead body that had been in Casey's trunk left behind the chloroform.
and on caylees remains, there happened to be traces of chloroform and gasoline. and there was traces of chloroform in the bitches trunk but what ever i mean she totally didn't do anything right? you have to admit its kind of fucked upI have gasoline tracing in my truck bed, there's been rope back there, and beer. Therefore, I am a child molester because Dateline said so.
You don't have chloroform in your truck bed or any evidence that you've had dead bodies back there. People drink beer, use gasoline, and use rope but they have no reason to have a dead human in their trunk.
At 7/7/11 06:11 PM, TheKlown wrote: Casey Anthony case should be considered a mistrial.It wasn't the verdict I wanted, therefore it's a mistrial.
No, the verdict was influenced by an irrelevant story therefore it shouldn't be accepted as the official decision on the case. Using a story to garner pity from the jury is not how decisions should be made in a trial.
Since the defense brought up molestation between Casey and her father when that had nothing to do with the case. The case was about a mother who was on trial for killing her kid and had not report her child missing for 30 days. Why were the defense team allowed to bring up something that had nothing to do with the case just so the jury felt sorry for Casey?Just like the prosecution brought up her partying and being a whore?
Her partying shows a complete lack of any grieving process and makes her seem like she was the one responsible for her daughter's death. Alone it wouldn't be enough, but in conjunction with all the other evidence and I don't see why the jury thought there was insufficient evidence to convict her.
