• Responding to email notices you receive.
    **************************************************
    In short, DON'T! Email notices are to ONLY alert you of a reply to your private message or your ad on this site. Replying to the email just wastes your time as it goes NOWHERE, and probably pisses off the person you thought you replied to when they think you just ignored them. So instead of complaining to me about your messages not being replied to from this site via email, please READ that email notice that plainly states what you need to do in order to reply to who you are trying to converse with.

  • IMPORTANT! PLEASE READ!! About the Google Adsense ads being displayed

    =====================
    Posted 08/15/2025
    =====================


    Yeah, I know. They are a pain in the butt. But they pay the bills to keep my server running. Just a fact of life, I am afraid.

    Want to get rid of them? Simple. Just become a Contributor level member or above and they will be gone. -> Please click HERE."

    Is that too much for me to ask of you to keep this site running? Well, sorry about that. I too wish I could get everything for free. But alas.....

    =====================
    Addendum: 01/10/2026
    =====================


    Google Adsense ad revenue for December, 2025 was just $30 over the cost of the lease for the server running this site. So, in effect, the money providing the incentive for me to continue running this site is coming SOLELY from the paid memberships and sponsorships here. Which honestly ain't much....

NOT GUILTY?!?!?!

rcarichter said:
New news---Casey goes free next Wednesday. And she gets to spend her 6 days in solitary so nobody hurts her.

Noelle
Click to expand...

Not even news really.She's in there for misdermeaners and timed served of almost 3yrs. of a max. 4....Stop wasteing tax payers dollars and just let her out now.
 
TripleMoonsExotic said:
I don't understand the argument being made that their was no evidence of anything. The defense stated it was an accidental drowning and she tried to hide it. She admitted to this happening under her supervision. MANSLAUGHTER in the least should have been issued.
Click to expand...

Covering up an accidental death is not manslaughter. At least not in PA but I do not want to assume the laws of Florida. In PA, it does appear to meet the definition of Abuse of Corpse but that doesn't carry much of a sentence and who knows if Florida has a similar law, not that it really matters now.

From what I got from the news, there was evidence she died, but not how. That said, the circumstantial evidence was pretty overwhelming. Reality is, we did not view the case from the jury booth. We saw it from the media perspective which is often very skewed.
 
bsharrah said:
Covering up an accidental death is not manslaughter. At least not in PA but I do not want to assume the laws of Florida. In PA, it does appear to meet the definition of Abuse of Corpse but that doesn't carry much of a sentence and who knows if Florida has a similar law, not that it really matters now.

From what I got from the news, there was evidence she died, but not how. That said, the circumstantial evidence was pretty overwhelming. Reality is, we did not view the case from the jury booth. We saw it from the media perspective which is often very skewed.
Click to expand...

Because of the Sunshine Law in Florida, one can (and I did) see every piece of evidence that the jury saw (and much that they did not see) months and years before the case even went to trial. SOme of us know the Mainstream Media is always slanted and biased and personally I rarely even watch any television at all.

There was more than enough evidence to convict her of at the very LEAST the aggravated child abuse charge.
 
KelliH said:
Because of the Sunshine Law in Florida, one can (and I did) see every piece of evidence that the jury saw (and much that they did not see) months and years before the case even went to trial. SOme of us know the Mainstream Media is always slanted and biased and personally I rarely even watch any television at all.

There was more than enough evidence to convict her of at the very LEAST the aggravated child abuse charge.
Click to expand...

Again, we did not view the case from the jury booth. Even if you received a personal presentation of the prosecution's evidence, you did not see how it was presented and did not hear the defense's arguments against it. I am not saying I agree or disagree with the verdict because it isn't going to change anything, but I am also not going to pretend that I am in any position to second guess the jury.
 
bsharrah said:
Again, we did not view the case from the jury booth. Even if you received a personal presentation of the prosecution's evidence, you did not see how it was presented and did not hear the defense's arguments against it. I am not saying I agree or disagree with the verdict because it isn't going to change anything, but I am also not going to pretend that I am in any position to second guess the jury.
Click to expand...

I actually did watch the entire trial. It was played live on the Internet from the time of jury selection. The only evidence I personally did not see were the photos of the remains themselves; the skull with the 3 pieces of duct tape that were covering the entire nose and mouth area. I'm glad I did not see that and I am glad there were no photos shown on the internet of that.

My opinion is that the jury did not understand the difference between "reasonable doubt" and "no doubt at all".

I'm just curious; are you old enough to remember the trial of OJ Simpson? If so, do you believe that jury was correct about the Not Guilty verdict in that case?

In any event, Casey Anthony is a sociopath and will end up in prison someday for some other crime. Just like OJ did. Eh, it's all just my opinion anyway. I'm not educated in the law, I'm just someone that cleans gecko cages every day ;-)
 
KelliH said:
Because of the Sunshine Law in Florida, one can (and I did) see every piece of evidence that the jury saw (and much that they did not see) months and years before the case even went to trial. SOme of us know the Mainstream Media is always slanted and biased and personally I rarely even watch any television at all.

There was more than enough evidence to convict her of at the very LEAST the aggravated child abuse charge.
Click to expand...

1.Committing an aggravated battery on a child;
2.Willfully torturing, maliciously punishing, or willfully and unlawfully caging a child; or
3.Knowingly or willfully abusing a child and in so doing causing great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the child


How are you gonna charge her with that?..There was no evidence of that...I watched it everyday as well,and there wasn't anything at all for evidence of aggravated abuse.
 
She was the last person seen with the child.

The child had duct tape covering the nasal and mouth area when the skull was found.

The child's body was put in trash bags and dumped on the side of the road.

She partied like a rock star and lied to everyone about the whereabouts of her kid for a month even though she knew all along the kid was decomposing in the woods.

I dunno, call me crazy but I personally would have found her guilty of murder 1, premeditated. Lucky Casey; I wasn't on the jury!

Good thing for Casey I wasn't on the jury huh?
 
Well Crazy,there was no proof she did those things...They don't even have a cause of death...There is absolutely no solid proof that she's anything other than a piss poor mother.
 
zzzdanz said:
Well Crazy,there was no proof she did those things...They don't even have a cause of death...There is absolutely no solid proof that she's anything other than a piss poor mother.
Click to expand...

There does not have to be a cause of death to convict someone of first degree murder. In many murder cases there is no cause of death. Sometimes, there is never even a body found and still there is a conviction. We'll just agree to disagree about this particular case. After hearing all the evidence... yeah, there was some doubt, but for me it was not reasonable doubt.

Back to the gecko room!
 
zzzdanz said:
Well Crazy,there was no proof she did those things...They don't even have a cause of death...There is absolutely no solid proof that she's anything other than a piss poor mother.
Click to expand...

There was more proof she did it than proof of an accidental drowning. She made up stories and lies from the beginning till the end. I wouldn't be surprised if she would have lived longer on death row than as a free woman.
 
yeah, there was some doubt, but for me it was not reasonable doubt
Click to expand...

ditto. I do believe if the prosecuter had not gone for the death penalty and gone for life in prison, she would have been found guilty.
 
"There was more proof she did it than proof of an accidental drowning.".....What proof that SHE did it?

Just for the record,I think the Mother had more to do with this as well...that woman is hiding something I think.
 
Her child is "missing" for a month and she "finally" gets around to telling some one?
I think she was giving Caylee chloroform all along so she could go out and party.She gave her too much one night and she died.This woman is a psychopath.We have all heard the term "getting away with murder".This b***h did.I think there was more evidence against her than OJ.
 
There was no evidence against HER, that's why she's walking away. They only showed her to be a bad parent..nothing more.
 
zzzdanz said:
There was no evidence against HER, that's why she's walking away. They only showed her to be a bad parent..nothing more.
Click to expand...

A "bad parent"?A bad parent might not keep their child clean.....she didn't report hers missing for A MONTH!She killed that kid or either she knows who did and is covering up.Either way,you DO NOT WAIT a month to report your child missing.
 
Dan, stop rehashing the same BS line. Their was no concrete physical evidence that she did it. However she had motive and her behavior is a clear indication of guilt. Their was plenty of evidence, just not what the jury expected in today's age of technology. Do you think 10-20 years ago they based a guilty charge solely on DNA? Of course their would be no DNA evidence when the body was left out in a swamp for months! To think otherwise is just asinine. Did you stop and think maybe she delayed telling the police and lead them on a wild goose chase for months because she was waiting for the DNA to degrade?

They didn't even charge her with "being a bad parent" (ie. child abuse). They let her walk on every meaningful count against her even though her "defense" was that the child drowned under her supervision. What happened was disgusting and people defending the decision made by that idiotic jury is disgusting. I hope she gets what she deserves in the end.
 
Again, piss poor parent and a liar..NOTHING else was proven in a court of law that says otherwise.
 
I am just curious...why do YOU think she waited a month to say "hey,I have been partying and just noticed my child has been missing for a month"?
 
TripleMoonsExotic said:
Dan, stop rehashing the same BS line. Their was no concrete physical evidence that she did it. However she had motive and her behavior is a clear indication of guilt. Their was plenty of evidence, just not what the jury expected in today's age of technology. Do you think 10-20 years ago they based a guilty charge solely on DNA? Of course their would be no DNA evidence when the body was left out in a swamp for months! To think otherwise is just asinine. Did you stop and think maybe she delayed telling the police and lead them on a wild goose chase for months because she was waiting for the DNA to degrade?

They didn't even charge her with "being a bad parent" (ie. child abuse). They let her walk on every meaningful count against her even though her "defense" was that the child drowned under her supervision. What happened was disgusting and people defending the decision made by that idiotic jury is disgusting. I hope she gets what she deserves in the end.
Click to expand...

Asinine to think there would be DNA?...why do you think there was thousands of dollars spent looking for that DNA? of course there could have been..pls.

They brought experts in from across the world who stated there certainly could have been DNA.

She was found guilty of being a liar,not a murderer...what's asinine about that?
Idiotic jury?..why are they idiots? because you don't agree with the verdict?
 
Back
Top