Comments
440,881 - 440,900 of 486,532 Comments Last updated 8 min ago
Diane Ax

United States

#473333 Dec 14, 2012
KC H8TRS R DOLTS wrote:
<quoted text>
:laughs uncontrollably:
That's okay because I could easily tell you weren't prepared to tackle the issue of fabricated evidence. Much less with me.
You are a little out of your league, counselor.
I figured I would gently insult you to give you an out, to let you save face in front of your new Topix friends.
It worked like a charm.
Who said I can't predict outcomes?
He'd never be able to handle Tannenbaum.
KC H8TRS R DOLTS

United States

#473334 Dec 14, 2012
REMEMBER CAYLEE wrote:
<quoted text>Why don't you explain it for the class, and I mean FACTS and not one of you wacky conspiracy theories :-)
The FACTS are:

1- The Pontiac was towed by Johnson's towing on June 30, 2008, under a private tow agreement between Amscot and Johnson's.
The documents and testimony support that FACT.

2- The Pontiac was retrieved on July 15, 2008 from Johnson's towing, by the lawful owners, who assumed the financial obligation for the PRIVATE TOW & STORAGE.
The documents and testimony support that FACT

3 - There were no witness statements - law enforcement narrative summaries - affidavits -- search/seize warrants - law enforcement vehicle release documents - or any testimony to suggest that OCSO impounded Casey's vehicle - or assisted in the removal of the PRIVATE TOW - or completed an altered impound form on June 30, 2008.
This FACT is also supported by the documents and the testimony.

If you grasp the complexity that 1+1=2 -- then you can grasp the FACT that a document from an unrelated 2007 impound, bearing white out correction fluid and filled back in with the Pontiac's information, dated June 30, 2008 -- is fabricated evidence in a missing person's case.

It shouldn't be that difficult for someone with your kindergarten intelligence to know when a document is woefully out of place.
KC H8TRS R DOLTS

United States

#473335 Dec 14, 2012
Diane Ax wrote:
<quoted text> He'd never be able to handle Tannenbaum.
Oh, hell naw!

Tannebaum would chew his lilly liver up and spit it out by breakfast.

“Picasso”

Level 7

Since: Feb 10

Calla Lilies

#473336 Dec 14, 2012
KC H8TRS R DOLTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The FACTS are:
1- The Pontiac was towed by Johnson's towing on June 30, 2008, under a private tow agreement between Amscot and Johnson's.
The documents and testimony support that FACT.
2- The Pontiac was retrieved on July 15, 2008 from Johnson's towing, by the lawful owners, who assumed the financial obligation for the PRIVATE TOW & STORAGE.
The documents and testimony support that FACT
3 - There were no witness statements - law enforcement narrative summaries - affidavits -- search/seize warrants - law enforcement vehicle release documents - or any testimony to suggest that OCSO impounded Casey's vehicle - or assisted in the removal of the PRIVATE TOW - or completed an altered impound form on June 30, 2008.
This FACT is also supported by the documents and the testimony.
If you grasp the complexity that 1+1=2 -- then you can grasp the FACT that a document from an unrelated 2007 impound, bearing white out correction fluid and filled back in with the Pontiac's information, dated June 30, 2008 -- is fabricated evidence in a missing person's case.
It shouldn't be that difficult for someone with your kindergarten intelligence to know when a document is woefully out of place.
As the counselor stated, it could be that the officer didn't have one handy and used the existing one,but to get to the real truth why don't you call them and find out instead of insinuating or just stf up about it.
KC H8TRS R DOLTS

United States

#473337 Dec 14, 2012
T-REX wrote:
<quoted text>
""Obviously the jury "got it" just by simply listening intently to the FBI witnesses testimony"'
Liar::
The Jury spokesman stated they didnt say she was quilty,but they thought there wasnt enough evidence to convict.
And after all that fabrication of evidence & crime staging, too.

Waste......huge waste.

“God Bless the A's ”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#473338 Dec 14, 2012
there is a shooting going on at a Connecticut elementary

“God Bless the A's ”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#473339 Dec 14, 2012

Level 1

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#473340 Dec 14, 2012
T-REX wrote:
<quoted text>
""Obviously the jury "got it" just by simply listening intently to the FBI witnesses testimony"'
Liar::
The Jury spokesman stated they didnt say she was quilty,but they thought there wasnt enough evidence to convict.
And the real reason for thier decision is the fact they were to damn ignorant to understand the evidence the state did present ( which was way more than enough both circumstantial and forensic),and the fact they were more interested in how much money they would be making off thier TV interviews.
But like Casey,they are resigned to hiding like rat's for fear of thier inaility to weigh the evidence honestly.
I still say that brolin was ther for one reason, to get all the names of the juror's and investigate thier criminal possability's and thier relatives also,with many of those jurors relatives in the Pen with Brolin's husband,it wouldnt take much influence to have the jury find her innocent.
This is a common misconception. Juries do not find people "innocent" in Florida. The only allowable verdicts are "Guilty" and "Not Guilty."

Ms. Anthony was not found to be "innocent." The State did not carry its burden of proof, so the jury found her "not guilty."

Innocence is not an issue for juries. Consider that a person may be charged with a crime that has four prongs of evidentiary proof, but if the State can only prove three prongs (or elements) of the crime, then the jury must find the defendant not guilty. That in no way shows innocence.

The biggest hurdle the State faced in the Anthony case was cause of death. With no trauma to the child's skeletal remains and no evidence of how the child died, the case was doomed. That essential prong was missing.(Yes, I know Dr. G. testified that the child died by homicide. Juries, though, are not bound by expert opinions and are free to disregard them--something most people do not understand).

Was Ms. Anthony "innocent"? I don't know, and that is not for the criminal justice system to decide.

Had Ms. Anthony testified, though, that the child drowned, choked on a sandwich, or that she was otherwise there when the child died, I'm of the opinion that she would have certainly been convicted of a lesser crime. Ms. Anthony is not a doctor, and the State would have righteously argued that these days, modern medicine can save people (particularly children) when they are clinically dead, and Ms. Anthony's failure to call 911 was negligence per se, and exposed her to at least an involuntary manslaughter charge.

Since Ms. Anthony did not testify, the jury was foreclosed from considering that avenue, since there was no testimony in evidence of that issue.

I gave Ms. Anthony a 75% chance of prevailing at trial. The issue that concerned me was jury nullification simply because there was a dead child involved. Such cases can turn very bad very quickly for defendant's, and I don't think Ms. Anthony would testify well on her own behalf. Frankly, I think the state would have made mincemeat out of her.

Additionally, Mr. Baez promised testimony in his opening arguments about sexual abuse that he never delivered. To lawyers, that is an extreme violation, but to juries, not so much. Mr. Baez's Discovery violations, too, were anathema to me.

Yet as Dad always said, "You can't argue with winning."

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#473341 Dec 14, 2012
STM wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, you mean you're playing your pretend to be someone you're not game again, and creaming in your pants I bet. SMFH
Ok this post is freakin gross.
I bet you are the nastiest hostest ever.

“God Bless the A's ”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#473342 Dec 14, 2012
One child is confirmed dead! This is horrible......God be with the parents

“God Bless the A's ”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#473343 Dec 14, 2012
STM wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, you mean you're playing your pretend to be someone you're not game again, and creaming in your pants I bet. SMFH
-Web wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok this post is freakin gross.
I bet you are the nastiest hostest ever.
I agree..... Pretty nasty....Sounded to me like a Rex post.

“God Bless the A's ”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#473344 Dec 14, 2012
CNN reported one child confirmed dead but the news is saying the shooter.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/201...
T-REX

Chico, CA

#473345 Dec 14, 2012
Nuthutters46er wrote:
CNN reported one child confirmed dead but the news is saying the shooter.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/201...
Still have a hard time comprehending what you read dont you.

One dead ====== the shooter
One in the hospital with several bullet wound's

Nothing on any news story I have read yet confirm's any student killed,however I believe the one shot several times may not survive.
Don

Hialeah, FL

#473346 Dec 14, 2012
DillinghamLawFirm wrote:
<quoted text>
This is a common misconception. Juries do not find people "innocent" in Florida. The only allowable verdicts are "Guilty" and "Not Guilty."
Ms. Anthony was not found to be "innocent." The State did not carry its burden of proof, so the jury found her "not guilty."
Innocence is not an issue for juries. Consider that a person may be charged with a crime that has four prongs of evidentiary proof, but if the State can only prove three prongs (or elements) of the crime, then the jury must find the defendant not guilty. That in no way shows innocence.
The biggest hurdle the State faced in the Anthony case was cause of death. With no trauma to the child's skeletal remains and no evidence of how the child died, the case was doomed. That essential prong was missing.(Yes, I know Dr. G. testified that the child died by homicide. Juries, though, are not bound by expert opinions and are free to disregard them--something most people do not understand).
Was Ms. Anthony "innocent"? I don't know, and that is not for the criminal justice system to decide.
Had Ms. Anthony testified, though, that the child drowned, choked on a sandwich, or that she was otherwise there when the child died, I'm of the opinion that she would have certainly been convicted of a lesser crime. Ms. Anthony is not a doctor, and the State would have righteously argued that these days, modern medicine can save people (particularly children) when they are clinically dead, and Ms. Anthony's failure to call 911 was negligence per se, and exposed her to at least an involuntary manslaughter charge.
Since Ms. Anthony did not testify, the jury was foreclosed from considering that avenue, since there was no testimony in evidence of that issue.
I gave Ms. Anthony a 75% chance of prevailing at trial. The issue that concerned me was jury nullification simply because there was a dead child involved. Such cases can turn very bad very quickly for defendant's, and I don't think Ms. Anthony would testify well on her own behalf. Frankly, I think the state would have made mincemeat out of her.
Additionally, Mr. Baez promised testimony in his opening arguments about sexual abuse that he never delivered. To lawyers, that is an extreme violation, but to juries, not so much. Mr. Baez's Discovery violations, too, were anathema to me.
Yet as Dad always said, "You can't argue with winning."
Yes! And the impound form is innocent, not Casey. Are you in agreement that the complaintant should file with OSCO about their lack of printed forms and having a bottle of liquid paper? Complaining on Topix about authorities zealous overuse of a common household item should be brought to the national forefront. It's a travesty when a cop uses liquid paper.

Maybe the liquid paper is what made Casey kill.

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#473347 Dec 14, 2012
Nuthutters46er wrote:
One child is confirmed dead! This is horrible......God be with the parents
How could anyone open fire on children?
How sad.

“God Bless the A's ”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#473348 Dec 14, 2012
T-REX wrote:
<quoted text>
Still have a hard time comprehending what you read dont you.
One dead ====== the shooter
One in the hospital with several bullet wound's
Nothing on any news story I have read yet confirm's any student killed,however I believe the one shot several times may not survive.
Reported on CNN, that one child is confirmed dead. I guess you didn't bother to turn on the news. I DID say that before. Comprehension problems Rex? Some child advocate you are...
T-REX

Chico, CA

#473349 Dec 14, 2012
Willingham Law Firm wrote:
<quoted text>
This is a common misconception. Juries do not find people "innocent" in Florida. The only allowable verdicts are "Guilty" and "Not Guilty."
Ms. Anthony was not found to be "innocent." The State did not carry its burden of proof, so the jury found her "not guilty."
Innocence is not an issue for juries. Consider that a person may be charged with a crime that has four prongs of evidentiary proof, but if the State can only prove three prongs (or elements) of the crime, then the jury must find the defendant not guilty. That in no way shows innocence.
The biggest hurdle the State faced in the Anthony case was cause of death. With no trauma to the child's skeletal remains and no evidence of how the child died, the case was doomed. That essential prong was missing.(Yes, I know Dr. G. testified that the child died by homicide. Juries, though, are not bound by expert opinions and are free to disregard them--something most people do not understand).
Was Ms. Anthony "innocent"? I don't know, and that is not for the criminal justice system to decide.
Had Ms. Anthony testified, though, that the child drowned, choked on a sandwich, or that she was otherwise there when the child died, I'm of the opinion that she would have certainly been convicted of a lesser crime. Ms. Anthony is not a doctor, and the State would have righteously argued that these days, modern medicine can save people (particularly children) when they are clinically dead, and Ms. Anthony's failure to call 911 was negligence per se, and exposed her to at least an involuntary manslaughter charge.
Since Ms. Anthony did not testify, the jury was foreclosed from considering that avenue, since there was no testimony in evidence of that issue.
I gave Ms. Anthony a 75% chance of prevailing at trial. The issue that concerned me was jury nullification simply because there was a dead child involved. Such cases can turn very bad very quickly for defendant's, and I don't think Ms. Anthony would testify well on her own behalf. Frankly, I think the state would have made mincemeat out of her.
Additionally, Mr. Baez promised testimony in his opening arguments about sexual abuse that he never delivered. To lawyers, that is an extreme violation, but to juries, not so much. Mr. Baez's Discovery violations, too, were anathema to me.
Yet as Dad always said, "You can't argue with winning."
""The State did not carry its burden of proof, so the jury found her "not guilty""

I doubt you are any kind of lawyer,you have Day's,nuthuggers 46er,krissy,and all the other hat's mentality.

The state presented way more than enough evidence,both circumstantial and forensic to warrant at least a man slaughter at the very least,more than enough to warrant a 2nd degree verdict also.
The jury did not consider one single thing presented by the prosecution,they didn't ask for clarification,did not ask for evidence to be looked at nothing.
There is no doubt in the majority of people's minds,Casey killed her daughter period. 31 days of not reporting her daughter missing,kidnapped,dead and absolutely no show of emotion about her loss, is enough to convict her on manslaughter.
The jury failed in their sworn statements to look at all the facts,and render a just verdict.
Now prove to me they looked at anything at all.

And besides,if your a lawyer,why did 95% of your collegues gasp at that verdict and couldnt believe what they were hearing.

STM

“Your talk is cheap”

Level 8

Since: Feb 09

Your lies are weak

#473350 Dec 14, 2012
-Web wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok this post is freakin gross.
I bet you are the nastiest hostest ever.
Whats a hostest, Ding Dong?

STM

“Your talk is cheap”

Level 8

Since: Feb 09

Your lies are weak

#473351 Dec 14, 2012
Nuthutters46er wrote:
STM wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, you mean you're playing your pretend to be someone you're not game again, and creaming in your pants I bet. SMFH
<quoted text>
I agree..... Pretty nasty....Sounded to me like a Rex post.
Well I couldn't help but notice your excitement at thinking you found something out about Sanka~SMFH~

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#473352 Dec 14, 2012
Nuthutters46er wrote:
STM wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, you mean you're playing your pretend to be someone you're not game again, and creaming in your pants I bet. SMFH
<quoted text>
I agree..... Pretty nasty....Sounded to me like a Rex post.
Well the Rex person should be more respectful.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Orlando Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 6 min Yeah 1,099,817
Let's Chat (Jan '12) 37 min EXECUTE KID KILLERS 17,621
2010 Florida Governor Race Election Results a "... (Nov '10) 46 min Liberal forever 2,958
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 5 hr truth-facts 46,292
Alphabet Game (Apr '12) 6 hr Princess Hey 9,044
keep a word----drop a word (Feb '11) 6 hr Princess Hey 17,047
The alphabet (Jun '06) 6 hr Princess Hey 1,050
•••
•••
Orlando Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Orlando Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Orlando People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Orlando News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Orlando
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••