Special Treatment for Casey Anthony......

[Booklover]

Do you think Casey Anthony is getting special treatment? If so, why? :mellow: If not, why? :mellow:

[Zeus]

Do you think Casey Anthony is getting special treatment? If so, why? :mellow: If not, why? :mellow:

She has more attorneys than we have listed in our yellow pages. :scared:

[Booklover]

She has more attorneys than we have listed in our yellow pages. :scared:

That's a good one, Zeus! :laugh: That's just for starters. Let's hear some more. :thumbsup:

[Booklover]

what do you mean by "special treatment"????

That should be self explanatory don't you think? It really wasn't a hard question. :smile:

[Mort_Snerd]

My answer is yes, she is getting spcial treatment.

In my viewpoint as a parent, people who kill babies deserve immediate death.

The fact she is still alive is special treatment.

Mortie

[kageykaren]

I'm not seeing KC having any special treatment yet. I feel JB is trying to get special treatment for his client. Just look at KC, pale, becomming wider and wider, sqirming in tight close, on a sugar high that could be making her so hyper and she can't escape. As far as the officers listening in to the classroom, it seems no different than mental health workers checking in on pts. with their psychiatrist. I'm alittle stunned by TU recollection of KC being treated cruely on the day LE recovered her daughters bones. I would like a better account of why she felt this. We are talking about a criminal not a guest of the jail. I would love to be in on KC first pow pow with Ms. L. Those two female defense lawyers I feel are wanting to make KC appear that she is no longer, "Poor me". The days are long gone from the waif of a girl who always needed someone to manipulate are over, I hope, We'll see! JB may be the only one left she can use her femine ways with. Shout out to all the single guys that didn't put a ring on a finger of KC. We will see how JG fares.

[Booklover]

My answer is yes, she is getting spcial treatment.

In my viewpoint as a parent, people who kill babies deserve immediate death.

The fact she is still alive is special treatment.

Mortie

Great post, Mort_Snerd! :thumbsup: I agree with you. Casey does not deserve to be alive. She whines about everything being taken from her, and that her whole life was taken from her. :confused: Not once has she thought about the fact that Caylee's whole life was taken from her! :cursing: Everything was "taken" from Caylee, and yet Casey continues to sit on her worthless behind and stuff her greedy, self-centered face in Jail. She continues to enjoy the attention she's getting while little Caylee has been forgotten. As far as good people are concerned, Caylee will never be forgotten.

[Booklover]

I'm not seeing KC having any special treatment yet. I feel JB is trying to get special treatment for his client. Just look at KC, pale, becomming wider and wider, sqirming in tight close, on a sugar high that could be making her so hyper and she can't escape. As far as the officers listening in to the classroom, it seems no different than mental health workers checking in on pts. with their psychiatrist. I'm alittle stunned by TU recollection of KC being treated cruely on the day LE recovered her daughters bones. I would like a better account of why she felt this. We are talking about a criminal not a guest of the jail. I would love to be in on KC first pow pow with Ms. L. Those two female defense lawyers I feel are wanting to make KC appear that she is no longer, "Poor me". The days are long gone from the waif of a girl who always needed someone to manipulate are over, I hope, We'll see! JB may be the only one left she can use her femine ways with. Shout out to all the single guys that didn't put a ring on a finger of KC. We will see how JG fares.

Good post, kageykaren! :smile: Casey is supposedly indigent, and the taxpayers will be footing the bill for her defense. How then is she entitled to all those high priced attorneys? I think that is most definitely special treatment. :huh:

[trich]

Personally I think Cindy and George are the ones being given special treatment.
Everything to them is for show and to try and make people believe
in their lies and deceptions.
Accusing others of what they most certainly know their daughter did.
Casey is where she belongs , locked up, as long as she stays locked up I am fine.....I want her to live her life out in the general population of the prison system. she is pure EVIL.

[kageykaren]

Good post, kageykaren! :smile: Casey is supposedly indigent, and the taxpayers will be footing the bill for her defense. How then is she entitled to all those high priced attorneys? I think that is most definitely special treatment. :huh: Don't get me started with the money trail that may be affording this defense team. I'm not aware of KC being declared as indigent at this time. JB had an in camera meeting with the judge about how the defense was being paid and I believe it is sealed and the judge did not see a conflict of interest. Don't quote me on that last statement. I need to get the court ruling in trnascript to remember its entirety. If tax payers end up paying the defense team, I hope all indignent criminals being tried for murder scream to the roof tops that they want the same form of repusentation. Like that will ever happen. Seriously why have these educated men and women stuck to this case like velcro? I don't see what possible pay off all them get. Is it really about the blood sweat and tears of a job well done? Could it be for recognition? (I think not) , the royalties one may be offered in a book deal? These answers seem much to common of a pat answer. It appears to me that their is an undertone stirring beneath the surface that will arise to explain away such a form legal loyalty Seeing JB appearing like Whimpy of Popeye fame, "I'll gladly pay you Tues for your help with the defense today," just doesn't seem to sit right. :rolleyes:

[marshmallow]

Personally I think Cindy and George are the ones being given special treatment.
Everything to them is for show and to try and make people believe
in their lies and deceptions.
Accusing others of what they most certainly know their daughter did.
Casey is where she belongs , locked up, as long as she stays locked up I am fine.....I want her to live her life out in the general population of the prison system. she is pure EVIL.



I tend to agree.
I really don't see where CAsey's being treated differently or better than her jailmates but I do think Cindy and George are playing the pity card and it gets them more leeway than anyone else would get.

[Booklover]

Personally I think Cindy and George are the ones being given special treatment.
Everything to them is for show and to try and make people believe
in their lies and deceptions.
Accusing others of what they most certainly know their daughter did.
Casey is where she belongs , locked up, as long as she stays locked up I am fine.....I want her to live her life out in the general population of the prison system. she is pure EVIL.

Great post, trich! :thumbsup: Personally, I think that since Casey is so vain, she should have her head shaved. Since she is so selfish & greedy, she should be given her favorite food for breakfast, lunch, & dinner for the rest of her life. That's just for starters. :laugh: At least she would still be breathing, unlike her poor little daughter, Caylee. :angry:

[Booklover]

Don't get me started with the money trail that may be affording this defense team. I'm not aware of KC being declared as indigent at this time. JB had an in camera meeting with the judge about how the defense was being paid and I believe it is sealed and the judge did not see a conflict of interest. Don't quote me on that last statement. I need to get the court ruling in trnascript to remember its entirety. If tax payers end up paying the defense team, I hope all indignent criminals being tried for murder scream to the roof tops that they want the same form of repusentation. Like that will ever happen. Seriously why have these educated men and women stuck to this case like velcro? I don't see what possible pay off all them get. Is it really about the blood sweat and tears of a job well done? Could it be for recognition? (I think not) , the royalties one may be offered in a book deal? These answers seem much to common of a pat answer. It appears to me that their is an undertone stirring beneath the surface that will arise to explain away such a form legal loyalty Seeing JB appearing like Whimpy of Popeye fame, "I'll gladly pay you Tues for your help with the defense today," just doesn't seem to sit right. :rolleyes:

Great post, kageykaren! :thumbsup: I heard on both the Nancy Grace Show, and Issues with Jane Velez Mitchell about Casey being declared indigent so that the taxpayers could end up paying for her defense. Casey & her attorney have much in common. They both know how to abuse the system. :cursing:

[kageykaren]

Great post, kageykaren! :thumbsup: I heard on both the Nancy Grace Show, and Issues with Jane Velez Mitchell about Casey being declared indigent so that the taxpayers could end up paying for her defense. Casey & her attorney have much in common. They both know how to abuse the system. :cursing: Abuse and flagrantly try to manipulate the system. Out of three attorneys KC could choose from, of course she was going to pick a male she thought she could manipulate. We can see where that decision has gotten her so far. These two fruitcakes are going to ex each other out straight to the penn. LKB & Ms. L are going to need life jackets to wade through sludgey muck of discovery. <3

[Booklover]

okay, then my broad based response to a broad based question is No, Casey is not getting any "special treatment".

Thank you for your opinion. :smile: Based on what I've heard on the Nancy Grace Show, if Casey is declared indigent and the taxpayers are footing the bill for her defense, she should not be entitled to all those high priced attorneys. In my opinion, she is receiving special treatment. She should be in the general population with the other prisoners. That again, is receiving special treatment. She isn't better than any of the other prisoners. Not by a long shot. :rolleyes:

[Booklover]

Abuse and flagrantly try to manipulate the system. Out of three attorneys KC could choose from, of course she was going to pick a male she thought she could manipulate. We can see where that decision has gotten her so far. These two fruitcakes are going to ex each other out straight to the penn. LKB & Ms. L are going to need life jackets to wade through sludgey muck of discovery. <3

Great post, kageykaren! :thumbsup: I completely agree with you. Casey sees everyone as "targets" or "prey", most especially men. Look at how she manipulates her dad & brother. Look at how easily she manipulated Jessie Grund. How sad for him that he was so completely fooled by her. That being said, what kind of people defend someone like Casey? :ohmy:

[Katprint]

Thank you for your opinion. :smile: Based on what I've heard on the Nancy Grace Show, if Casey is declared indigent and the taxpayers are footing the bill for her defense, she should not be entitled to all those high priced attorneys. In my opinion, she is receiving special treatment. She should be in the general population with the other prisoners. That again, is receiving special treatment. She isn't better than any of the other prisoners. Not by a long shot. :rolleyes:
It's not really "special treatment." Casey is being treated the same as other prisoners who are accused of similar crimes. I agree with you that "she isn't better than any of the other prisoners;" to the contrary, it is the worst prisoners (child molesters, people who murder children, serial killers, etc.) who are kept segregated from the general population. When she is convicted and sentenced to death, she will continue to be held separate from the general population, alone in a cell on Death Row.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

[Booklover]

It's not really "special treatment." Casey is being treated the same as other prisoners who are accused of similar crimes. I agree with you that "she isn't better than any of the other prisoners;" to the contrary, it is the worst prisoners (child molesters, people who murder children, serial killers, etc.) who are kept segregated from the general population. When she is convicted and sentenced to death, she will continue to be held separate from the general population, alone in a cell on Death Row.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

While I understand what you're saying, Katprint, I can't agree on this one. :smile: Being held in protective custody is special treatment. All prisoners should be housed together. That would be equal treatment, in my opinion. Casey gets far more time with her attorneys than most other prisoners. When she was on "house arrest", look at how much time she spent in her attorney's office! :ohmy: At least that's the way it certainly appears from what we've seen since the beginning of this case. :smile:

[Katprint]

<respectfully snipped>Casey gets far more time with her attorneys than most other prisoners. When she was on "house arrest", look at how much time she spent in her attorney's office!

<respectfully snipped>Where do you get the idea that Casey gets far more time with her attorney than any other prisoner? A prisoner has the right to see their attorney at any time, unless the prison or jail is on lockdown for some reason.
A friend of mine from high school represented Donald Beardslee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Beardslee in his death penalty appeals. I understand he spent a lot of time with Beardslee especially shortly before Beardslee's execution in 2005.

The amount of time that an attorney spends with his client is limited by the attorney (rarely the client refuses to see the attorney), not by the jail/prison facility. Most attorneys don't want to spend 8-10 hours per day with a single client, particularly if that client is not paying them. Most attorneys simply can't financially afford to because they have to pay the rent, pay staff salaries, pay office expenses, and have a little left over to live on themselves.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

[Booklover]

No, being held in protective custody is NOT special treatment. It's a control factor. Any controversial prisoner is housed separately.

Where do you get the idea that Casey gets far more time with her attorney than any other prisoner? A prisoner has the right to see their attorney at any time, unless the prison or jail is on lockdown for some reason.

Seriously, you can't take what you hear on NG's show as accurate either. NG is in it for the ratings.

You seem familiar to me, because, you sound just like another poster who was here only to argue. :laugh: Trying to intimidate another person because they don't agree with you is also a "control factor". Child killers should not be protected. Children are the ones who need protecting, not the other way around. Anyone in prison who is suspected of killing a child should not be kept separate from the other prisoners. As far as I'm concerned, Nancy Grace cares about "victims", and is not in it for the ratings. :wink: I don't agree with your opinion. Let's just leave it at that, because, I'm not interested in arguing. Just because two people don't agree, it doesn't mean that one is wrong and the other one is right. As opinions differ, so do people. :smile:

[Booklover]

A friend of mine from high school represented Donald Beardslee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Beardslee in his death penalty appeals. I understand he spent a lot of time with Beardslee especially shortly before Beardslee's execution in 2005.

The amount of time that an attorney spends with his client is limited by the attorney (rarely the client refuses to see the attorney), not by the jail/prison facility. Most attorneys don't want to spend 8-10 hours per day with a single client, particularly if that client is not paying them. Most attorneys simply can't financially afford to because they have to pay the rent, pay staff salaries, pay office expenses, and have a little left over to live on themselves.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

Great post, Katprint! :smile: I understand what you're saying. However, I still believe that Casey is receiving special treatment. By that I mean, anyone who is in prison and they are suspected of harming a child in any way should not be kept separate from other prisoners. Children are the ones who should be protected, not the ones suspected of harming them. Child murderers, child predators, & child abusers should never be protected. In my opinion, all prisoners should be housed together. :smile:

[Mort_Snerd]

Only those that live near Martha's Vinyard. Some of us live near a bridge in Concord.

Mortie

Mort, I thought all you people in MA were more liberal. :laugh:

[gnm109]

A friend of mine from high school represented Donald Beardslee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Beardslee in his death penalty appeals. I understand he spent a lot of time with Beardslee especially shortly before Beardslee's execution in 2005.

The amount of time that an attorney spends with his client is limited by the attorney (rarely the client refuses to see the attorney), not by the jail/prison facility. Most attorneys don't want to spend 8-10 hours per day with a single client, particularly if that client is not paying them. Most attorneys simply can't financially afford to because they have to pay the rent, pay staff salaries, pay office expenses, and have a little left over to live on themselves.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

That's correct. I was able to see any of the criminal clients that I represented at any time during normal hours in the jails. Family visits and other personal visits are regulated closely and generally only permitted during normal visiting hours but the attorneys are usualy exempt from such restrictions. Of course, it makes no sense for any attorney to spend a long time with such a client for the reasons you set forth. Attorneys need to earn a living too and you can't do it over at the jail.

The only times I would need to see a client in jail would be to have them sign papers or explain the status of their case and if they needed to make a decision. This would usually amount to no more than an hour or so, not more. From what I've read JB and others seem to spend a lot of time with CA. Perhaps that's their style but it won't pay the light bill.

[tulpje]

No, being held in protective custody is NOT special treatment. It's a control factor. Any controversial prisoner is housed separately.

Where do you get the idea that Casey gets far more time with her attorney than any other prisoner? A prisoner has the right to see their attorney at any time, unless the prison or jail is on lockdown for some reason.

Seriously, you can't take what you hear on NG's show as accurate either. NG is in it for the ratings.




Blackbird, you're absolutely correct.
Casey is in custody right now, and the state is responsible for her.
If an inmate kills her, the state will be held responsible.
Casey, at the moment is not a convicted killer, she's a suspect waiting for trial.

I don't see "special treatment", she's not the only inmate being held in protective custody.

Casey's, as any other inmate, has the right to see her attorney.

[Katprint]

That's correct. I was able to see any of the criminal clients that I represented at any time during normal hours in the jails. Family visits and other personal visits are regulated closely and generally only permitted during normal visiting hours but the attorneys are usualy exempt from such restrictions. Of course, it makes no sense for any attorney to spend a long time with such a client for the reasons you set forth. Attorneys need to earn a living too and you can't do it over at the jail.

The only times I would need to see a client in jail would be to have them sign papers or explain the status of their case and if they needed to make a decision. This would usually amount to no more than an hour or so, not more. From what I've read JB and others seem to spend a lot of time with CA. Perhaps that's their style but it won't pay the light bill.
My experience with clients in jail is basically the same as yours. Also, from time to time I have taken depositions in prison; those were during normal business hours and the prison staff was very accommodating as far as not setting any time limits in advance although most depositions don't last more than a few hours anyway.

I think Casey probably hung out in Baez' conference room watching TV, playing video games or whatever while he worked on other cases at his desk. (Presumably his "law firm" - himself and his junior partner who has been admitted for only two years, compared to Baez' whopping three years - does have other cases to work on. Hopefully the entire financial burden of Baez' vanity is not being carried along on the back of his wife and whatever she might be earning at her job.) I doubt Baez was in there with her all day, every day.

I don't think Baez spent or currently spends that kind of 8-10 hours per day time down at the jail. I vaguely remember seeing a link to jail sign-in sheets at one point, and it seemed like he spent a couple hours here and a couple hours there at the jail, probably about 4-6 hours per week which would be consistent with discussing ongoing case developments with her as more and more incriminating evidence was discovered. However, this is only a vague recollection and I might be wrong.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

[~layla~]

Thank you for your opinion. :smile: Based on what I've heard on the Nancy Grace Show, if Casey is declared indigent and the taxpayers are footing the bill for her defense, she should not be entitled to all those high priced attorneys. In my opinion, she is receiving special treatment. She should be in the general population with the other prisoners. That again, is receiving special treatment. She isn't better than any of the other prisoners. Not by a long shot. :rolleyes:

ugh with the i-need-to-bold-everything-i-say....

but I do think you are forgetting the liability of the state. Gen pop may be unsafe and everyone knows we have to keep a convict safe, at least until convicted!

[girlspell]

She has a cell for herself, so that in a way would be special treatment. She gets more money to spend in jail then anyone else. But that's because people send her money. In a way, she has a good life. She's taken care of, well fed, free medical and dental, plenty of sleep with lots of books to read. What more do you want? So right now, she has it good. Further down the road, different story.

[gnm109]

She has a cell for herself, so that in a way would be special treatment. She gets more money to spend in jail then anyone else. But that's because people send her money. In a way, she has a good life. She's taken care of, well fed, free medical and dental, plenty of sleep with lots of books to read. What more do you want? So right now, she has it good. Further down the road, different story.

Until CA receives a long-term living situation in prison it wouldn't be all that unusual to have her in a cell alone. This is often done by the authorities for security purposes and personal safety since others might wish to harm her, especially considering her notoriety and the distasteful nature of the crime. As I'm sure you know, child killers are often targeted by others. At the present time, other than sharing a cell, she is in jail and is getting the same privileges as the other prisoners.

Once she is convicted and sent to a regular prison, I would expect that she would share a cell or a room with one or more other prisoners. That is unless she were to violate some rule or have bad behavior and get put into the Security Housing Unit (SHU) for disciplinary purposes.

[Dells]

I personally don't think that Casey is getting special treatment at this point in time. Yes, she is in protective custody, but that is because this case has reached international proportions and if something were to happen to her, the state of Florida would be held responsible. They are just being extra careful w/her.

I do think, however, that George and Cindy are getting some special treatment by some members of the press that perhaps want to stay on their good side so that they can get exclusives when the time comes, and I also think that LE is giving them some special treatment because from my point of view they should have already been charged w/obstruction of justice, tampering w/evidence, lying to LE, etc. Maybe LE is just biding their time and they are planning to charge The Anthony's after the trial? If The Anthony's are never charged w/anything, then I think it is just like giving a free pass to other families that it is okay to cover for the criminals in their family. I know The Anthony's lost a granddaughter, but I do not think it gives them the right to break the law.

I do think Casey is getting special treatment from her parents, despite how horribly she is appearing to treat them. I guess The Anthony's have always treated Casey w/kid gloves so nothing has really changed in that family.:thumbdown:

[gnm109]

The thing which really concerns me is that the statute of limitations is running on any crimes the Anthonys might have committed. Casey's trial is probably years away and while I don't know what the limitation is for prosecuting them, I would think around two years. Maybe one of the lawyers here would know. But if they wait until Casey is tried, it may be too late to prosecute the Anthonys. If so, I think that's a shame. They are covered with Teflon. I can't understand it. There have been two criminal complaints about them of which I am aware, when George pushed the old lady in the street and now a few days ago after the chase. (Leonard Padilla said he was on the phone with Lois when the chase started so he knows what happened. He told Lois to dial 911.)
"The sensitivity of the investigation," what a crock. I guess all of the Anthonys are very sensitive people. Sure, like a bulldozer.

While it's true that there is a statute on limitations on any alleged crimes that the Anthonys may have committed, I'm quite sure that the authorities are aware of that and could file any cases at the last day if necessary. In any case, the actions of the Anthonys pale in comparison to what their daughter may have done.

[tulpje]

Thanks for your answer. What the Anthonys have done certainly does pale in comparison to murder, but I think if they have committed crimes, they should pay just like everyone else. There must be many people in Orlando on trial or awaiting trial who have committed crimes other than murder and they are being prosecuted. Why not the Anthonys if they have committed crimes? I hope that the authorities are keeping the statute of limitations in mind, but at this point I have little or no faith in the Orlando authorities.




Prosecution need the Anthony's to testify against their daughter at her trial.
If they are charged with a crime, they will plead the fifth, because they don't want to incriminate them self.
I'm sure their lawyer make sure of that.

:wink:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=plead%20the%20fifth

[Dells]

While it's true that there is a statute on limitations on any alleged crimes that the Anthonys may have committed, I'm quite sure that the authorities are aware of that and could file any cases at the last day if necessary. In any case, the actions of the Anthonys pale in comparison to what their daughter may have done.

Bolding mine....

So true, but my biggest concern is that The Anthony's actions are going to help get Casey an acquittal for a crime that I think she is totally and completely responsible for. If that happens it would be a travesty and a miscarriage of justice.:thumbdown:

[sammy62]

I think we need to remember that Casey is still innocent until proven Guilty. We may think she is guilty, but she deserves to be protected in jail until her trial. Who knows what may come out yet. Maybe that crab *** Cindy did it all along.:sneaky:

[Booklover]

I think we need to remember that Casey is still innocent until proven Guilty. We may think she is guilty, but she deserves to be protected in jail until her trial. Who knows what may come out yet. Maybe that crab *** Cindy did it all along.:sneaky:

No mother who is not involved in the disappearance of her child would allow 31 days to pass without reporting it. Let's remember that Casey didn't even report Caylee missing. :angry: Cindy is the one who called 911. Those are not the actions of an innocent person. :rolleyes:

[Booklover]

ugh with the i-need-to-bold-everything-i-say....

but I do think you are forgetting the liability of the state. Gen pop may be unsafe and everyone knows we have to keep a convict safe, at least until convicted!

You are extremely immature if you need to criticize my right to expression. The fact that you are personally attacking me shows that you are not here because you are interested in this case. Read my signature, ugh - because, you have proven my point. :laugh: I'm not here to argue with you, or anyone else. I have the right to my opinion. If you don't like it, you have the option of not reading my posts. By the same token, I have the option to "ignore" you. Therefore, from now on, please consider yourself "ignored". Troublemakers are not worth my time. :wink:

[Booklover]

Yes, the entire Anthony family is getting special treatment. IMO Cindy, George and the Milsteads should have been arrested for their caper chasing people through residential neighborhoods at high speed last week as well as Milstead impersonating a police officer. Apparently the trooper on the scene refused to intervene because the Anthonys "Have been through enough." Casey is getting special treatment which started when LE allowed her to spend 6-8 hours a day in her attorney's office when she was out on bond. Everyone knows that he was not discussing the case with her all day, every day. She would call in and ask to stay longer with Baez and she was allowed to do it. Whatever they were doing.

Also, it is customary for inmates to appear in jail attire when they are called to court for pre-trial hearings. It is usually only when a jury is present that they wear regular clothing. Casey struts in in blouses which are too tight and what appears to be Baez' pants. I think the judge was right in requiring her presence at these hearings, but not in allowing her civilian clothing. She should wear the jumpsuit like everyone else. We don't know what goes on daily in the jail, but I suspect Casey has manipulated herself in to a sweet deal of some kind during her incarceration.

IMO the whole bunch should be in jail. :cursing:

Excellent post, MyCharlie! :thumbsup: Keep them coming! I completely agree with everything you've said. It really makes you wonder why anyone would defend someone like Casey Anthony. She has no morals, and cares for no one except herself. She's a user, and a con-artist. All prisoners should be housed together. Extra cameras should be installed in strategic places so that jail officials will know what's going on at all times, day or night. Instead of lounging around all day watching TV, stuffing her face, and sitting on her lazy butt, Casey should be made to work ~ just like all the other prisoners. She is, most definitely receiving "special treatment". :rolleyes:

[Booklover]

She has a cell for herself, so that in a way would be special treatment. She gets more money to spend in jail then anyone else. But that's because people send her money. In a way, she has a good life. She's taken care of, well fed, free medical and dental, plenty of sleep with lots of books to read. What more do you want? So right now, she has it good. Further down the road, different story.

Great post, girlspell! :smile: The fact that Casey is allowed to lounge around all day, stuffing her face, watching TV, and basically sitting on her lazy butt, does show that she's receiving "special treatment". She should be put to "work" just like all the other prisoners. Oh, that's right, Casey is highly allergic to "work". :laugh:

[Booklover]

I personally don't think that Casey is getting special treatment at this point in time. Yes, she is in protective custody, but that is because this case has reached international proportions and if something were to happen to her, the state of Florida would be held responsible. They are just being extra careful w/her.

I do think, however, that George and Cindy are getting some special treatment by some members of the press that perhaps want to stay on their good side so that they can get exclusives when the time comes, and I also think that LE is giving them some special treatment because from my point of view they should have already been charged w/obstruction of justice, tampering w/evidence, lying to LE, etc. Maybe LE is just biding their time and they are planning to charge The Anthony's after the trial? If The Anthony's are never charged w/anything, then I think it is just like giving a free pass to other families that it is okay to cover for the criminals in their family. I know The Anthony's lost a granddaughter, but I do not think it gives them the right to break the law.

I do think Casey is getting special treatment from her parents, despite how horribly she is appearing to treat them. I guess The Anthony's have always treated Casey w/kid gloves so nothing has really changed in that family.:thumbdown:

Great post, Dells! :thumbsup: I agree with most of what you've said. Casey should be put to "work" just like all the other prisoners. She certainly is no better than anyone, and doesn't deserve anything special. Wait until reality hits her between the eyes. :laugh:

[dref99]

That should be self explanatory don't you think? It really wasn't a hard question. :smile:

Humor me - I don't understand the question either. She is in jail, awaiting trial. One murderer, recently convicted, spent 5 years out on bail - now that is what I would call special treatment

jmo

[Booklover]

Humor me - I don't understand the question either. She is in jail, awaiting trial. One murderer, recently convicted, spent 5 years out on bail - now that is what I would call special treatment

jmo

Casey is allowed to lounge around all day stuffing her face, watching TV, and basically sitting on her lazy butt. She should be put to work just like any other prisoner. I'll say it again. In my opinion, Casey Anthony is getting "special treatment". We all know she's allergic to "work", but, that's beside the point. She's in prison for a reason. She's not there on vacation. :smile:

[gnm109]

Casey is allowed to lounge around all day stuffing her face, watching TV, and basically sitting on her lazy butt. She should be put to work just like any other prisoner. I'll say it again. In my opinion, Casey Anthony is getting "special treatment". We all know she's allergic to "work", but, that's beside the point. She's in prison for a reason. She's not there on vacation. :smile:

For a numbr of reasons, primarily her personal safety, she won't be working anytime before the trial. Typically, local jails don't have a work program for people awaiting trial.

Possibly once she is convicted and sent to prison, she might have a job but again, her personal safety is important since the correctional authorities are liable for any harm that may come to her.

Additionally, she is notorious at this point and everything she does is newsworthy, not to me, but to the public in general. The jail where she is kept is under a great deal of scrutiny.

I can't see that this is special treatment since she's not going anywhere anytime soon. I guess it's all in how you look at it.

[dref99]

Casey is allowed to lounge around all day stuffing her face, watching TV, and basically sitting on her lazy butt. She should be put to work just like any other prisoner. I'll say it again. In my opinion, Casey Anthony is getting "special treatment". We all know she's allergic to "work", but, that's beside the point. She's in prison for a reason. She's not there on vacation. :smile:

She is in jail under arrest, not convicted. She presumably does what is required of her - I don't see that as anything special. It is probably psychologically worse for her to have little to do - too much time to think about the past.

jmo

[margaritaville]

What do you guys think??

[bchand]

I put Jesse but I believe they will just try and blame anyone other than the OC.

Kronk would be another good choice.

[Details]

I checked them all - I think the defense will be a traditional SODDI - a scattershot approach to say that anyone else could have done it, pointing at everything and everyone to try to create doubt.

[margaritaville]

I checked them all - I think the defense will be a traditional SODDI - a scattershot approach to say that anyone else could have done it, pointing at everything and everyone to try to create doubt.



Very good point....

I can see them do that too.

[imc_e]

ALL of the above.

:sneaky:

[tulpje]

What do you guys think??



I want to vote for Kronk, but he's not on the list.

[Booklover]

For a numbr of reasons, primarily her personal safety, she won't be working anytime before the trial. Typically, local jails don't have a work program for people awaiting trial.

Possibly once she is convicted and sent to prison, she might have a job but again, her personal safety is important since the correctional authorities are liable for any harm that may come to her.

Additionally, she is notorious at this point and everything she does is newsworthy, not to me, but to the public in general. The jail where she is kept is under a great deal of scrutiny.

I can't see that this is special treatment since she's not going anywhere anytime soon. I guess it's all in how you look at it.

Casey's personal safety should be no more important than that of any other prisoner. That's my point. Perhaps they should have cameras on her 24/7 so that they can really ensure her personal safety. I think this should be done for all prisoners. That way the jail officials will know what the prisoners are doing at any given time of the day or night. That would be equal treatment, and it would ensure the safety of all prisoners. :smile:

[Booklover]

She is in jail under arrest, not convicted. She presumably does what is required of her - I don't see that as anything special. It is probably psychologically worse for her to have little to do - too much time to think about the past.

jmo

Casey thrives on lounging around doing nothing. It's what she's good at, and it makes her feel pampered. She is in jail for a reason. Therefore, she should be put to work just like everyone else in jail. She probably loves jail because she is "protected". She was lazy enough as it was before she went to jail. Sociopaths don't think of their victims. They only think about themselves. Casey is in for a very rude awakening. Her fantasy world is going to come crashing down on her. When reality sets in, she will be just like all the other prisoners, nothing special. :smile:

[tulpje]

Casey's personal safety should be no more important than that of any other prisoner. That's my point. Perhaps they should have cameras on her 24/7 so that they can really ensure her personal safety. I think this should be done for all prisoners. That way the jail officials will know what the prisoners are doing at any given time of the day or night. That would be equal treatment, and it would ensure the safety of all prisoners. :smile:



Having cameras on Casey 24/7, now that would be special treatment don't you think?

How can that be equal treatment?

FYI there are cameras all over that place where Casey is.

[margaritaville]

I want to vote for Kronk, but he's not on the list.


sorry there is a max of 5 answers for the polls...

[seeing_eye]

What do you guys think??

I think they'll point to Jesse since they've already mentioned in court that he was considered a suspect by LE which is totally incorrect. I don't believe LE ever entertained the thought that Jesse was a POI in the case. But the fact one of the defense attorneys stated it in court shows me where they're intending to go. I think the defense intends to maintain that Casey was "set up" or framed for the murder. JMO

[gnm109]

Casey is being held in jail pending trial, not in prison.

Generally, people held in jail pending trial are not "put to work". They are being housed.

In the jail and prison system, "work" is generally a reward, not a punishment.


That's quite correct. As you say, work is a privilege or a reward.
I don't see how they could permit her to work under the circumstances.

[Dells]

I don't think the defense even knows at this point what they are going to do, but if Casey continues to maintain her innocence:rolleyes:, then I personally think the defense will go w/the SODDI defense, but not necessarily point to any one person. I think they will show how multiple people (Jesse, Cindy, TonE, Jesse, etc) could have had the means, motive or opportunity to murder Caylee, but they won't back themselves into a corner by pinpointing any one person.

I don't think they will go w/the nanny did it because I don't think anyone on this planet believes that she exists, but I am curious as to how they are going to explain away all the lies that Casey told about the nanny.

I also want to add that I don't think a jury is going to buy that anyone else but Casey did this, but strange things can happen during trial and I guess it depends on what type of jury is seated.

[Booklover]

Having cameras on Casey 24/7, now that would be special treatment don't you think?

How can that be equal treatment?

FYI there are cameras all over that place where Casey is.

If you read my post, you will see that I said they should do this for all prisoners. By the way, since I've never been in jail, I wouldn't know about the cameras and where they are located. :smile:

[marshmallow]

I think they'll blame it on a vague concoction of anyone and everyone. They can't specifically blame anyone because it's too easy to discount them, they have to be vague and not name names. Look how well the "ZFG" worked out for Casey. They can't name names after that.

[Pretty Leaf]

When they throw the dung..whomever it sticks to.

[tulpje]

That's quite correct. As you say, work is a privilege or a reward.
I don't see how they could permit her to work under the circumstances.



Yes you are 100% right.
She can't even be around other inmates.
When her parents were visiting you could see on camera she had to go back in her cell because an other inmate had to walk by.
After she came back on camera she told her parents the reason she had to leave.

[dref99]

Casey thrives on lounging around doing nothing. It's what she's good at, and it makes her feel pampered. She is in jail for a reason. Therefore, she should be put to work just like everyone else in jail. She probably loves jail because she is "protected". She was lazy enough as it was before she went to jail. Sociopaths don't think of their victims. They only think about themselves. Casey is in for a very rude awakening. Her fantasy world is going to come crashing down on her. When reality sets in, she will be just like all the other prisoners, nothing special. :smile:


I would suggest you add JMO or something similar to posts like this one.

You really have no idea as to how CA feels about being in jail etc etc etc. I would think she is "nothing special" now - just like the other prisoners. Every person that ends up in prison has a massive change of lifestyle - nothing special about that.

I see no point in a post that simply spiels out hate and venom

jmo

[EverMoth]

I don't really see how the defense can actually blame it on anyone. It's clear that none of those people did it. They would have a problem trying blame it on a random SODDIT since car keys, house keys, knowledge of the Ant house, etc. etc. etc. would be required by whoever the perp was. The people on the poll are the people that were apparently "closest" to Casey but there is no motive. No evidence against them whatsoever. Even if I were a juror who was completely unfamiliar with the case, based on the evidence that has just been made public so far, I would be looking at Casey. jmo

[Booklover]

I would suggest you add JMO or something similar to posts like this one.

You really have no idea as to how CA feels about being in jail etc etc etc. I would think she is "nothing special" now - just like the other prisoners. Every person that ends up in prison has a massive change of lifestyle - nothing special about that.

I see no point in a post that simply spiels out hate and venom

jmo

I see no point in personally attacking another person simply because they are stating their opinion. Read my signature. I would suggest that you remember everyone has the right to their own opinion. In the future, please consider yourself "ignored". You are not worth my time. You're not here to intelligently discuss this case. You're just here to cause trouble. That's completely transparent. I have the right to wonder about anyone who would defend someone like Casey. :wink:

[dref99]

I see no point in personally attacking another person simply because they are stating their opinion. Read my signature. I would suggest that you remember everyone has the right to their own opinion. In the future, please consider yourself "ignored". You are not worth my time. You're not here to intelligently discuss this case. You're just here to cause trouble. That's completely transparent. I have the right to wonder about anyone who would defend someone like Casey. :wink:


I deliberately did not attack the poster - I attacked the venom in the post. I disagreed with the comments made and stated that fact. I have no interest in what you personally think of me - but note that you have made comment on same. To suggest I am here to "make trouble" is a serious charge and I refute it in every possible way.

When I disagree with your statements, I will continue to comment. If you only wish to read opinions from those who agree with your view of the world, that is your right & I have not in any way attempted to alter that fact.

Casey Anthony is in jail. She has been charged with murder. She appears to get no "special treatment" that I can see. That was the topic of the discussion. That was what I addressed.

jmo

[grammie/va]

I thinnk they will keep throwing out names until one name kinda sticks! But in the end blame whoever they want to, but Casey will be convicted. My opinion

[kanzz]

Here's a bizarre theory my mind created last night as I was in that wierd Tinkerbell place (between awake and asleep)..

I envisioned Casey telling Cindy "This is all your fault!" (when the two of them were finally face to face and out of the earshot of others after Casey's arrest and first bailout... or maybe when the two of them were in that vehicle supposedly running from the media... doesn't matter when)...

and then, taking it one step further and beyond the brink, Casey tells Cindy they'd better cover the best they can for the her and make these charges go away or she'll tell Jose that Cindy did this and created the entire cover-up.

After all, says Casey, I never wanted this baby that you forced me to have; and after you tried to choke the life out of me that night, I totally lost it and did the same thing to your precious granddaughter. All your fault, mother!

If anything could create doubt in the minds of the jurors, this might be the easiest one for Jose.

Bizarre. And I hope I'm wrong!

[~layla~]

I deliberately did not attack the poster - I attacked the venom in the post. I disagreed with the comments made and stated that fact. I have no interest in what you personally think of me - but note that you have made comment on same. To suggest I am here to "make trouble" is a serious charge and I refute it in every possible way.

When I disagree with your statements, I will continue to comment. If you only wish to read opinions from those who agree with your view of the world, that is your right & I have not in any way attempted to alter that fact.

Casey Anthony is in jail. She has been charged with murder. She appears to get no "special treatment" that I can see. That was the topic of the discussion. That was what I addressed.

jmo

The OP knows this.... she has the need for attention.
Casey isnt recieving special treatment as far as I can tell. She is protected from herself and others being in a single cell. They can more easily monitor her and keep harm from her.

I guess people forgot Susan Smith, because it took years before they put her in a room mate/cellie situation.

[seeing_eye]

You know "Booklover" - you seem to have this persecution complex with anyone who does not agree with you and pat you on the back and say "atta girl" (or boy, whichever it may be).

But on the other hand, you keep "ignoring" people because you don't like their responses you could have you very own threads.

Just because someone responds, disagrees and points out to you that your assumptions and knowledge about the criminal system is limited and flawed, doesn't mean that they are attacking you. I would suggest that you back up and let others respond with their own thoughts and opinions and knowledge, even if you don't like the answers.

Furthermore, your comments about someone defending Casey because they disagree with you is atrocious, uncalled for and just plain wrong.

ITA with everything you said. Some posters need to read their own signature line and abide by it.

[Booklover]

Blackbird, you are the one who needs to back up. You don't know me, or anything about me. I have absolutely no use for anyone who uses, and abuses others. I am judging Casey Anthony based on what I've seen, heard and read about her. I've stated my opinion, just as you have stated yours. I don't agree with you, so we can just agree to disagree. I have a conscience, and morals so I will not defend anyone who does not even report her child missing. On top of that, she lied to the authorities over, & over again. There is too much evidence against Casey, and no, I won't have anything good to say about someone like Casey Anthony. If you choose to worship her, & sing her "praises", that's your choice & opinion, not mine. That expression, "Birds of a feather flock together", seems pretty accurate. Convicts hang out with convicts, and they do that for a reason. I have no desire to associate with anyone who thinks it's alright to harm another human being. As people differ, so do opinions. I have heard your opinion, and you've heard mine. I have nothing in common with Casey Anthony, or anyone like her. If you don't like my posts, and my opinions you do have the option of not reading them. :read: I don't wish to have any further discussions with anyone who is obviously just looking for trouble. Those with that purpose in mind can just talk to themselves from here on out. Plain & simple. :smile:

[MoonShadow]

You know "Booklover" - you seem to have this persecution complex with anyone who does not agree with you and pat you on the back and say "atta girl" (or boy, whichever it may be).

But on the other hand, you keep "ignoring" people because you don't like their responses you could have you very own threads.

Just because someone responds, disagrees and points out to you that your assumptions and knowledge about the criminal system is limited and flawed, doesn't mean that they are attacking you. I would suggest that you back up and let others respond with their own thoughts and opinions and knowledge, even if you don't like the answers.

Furthermore, your comments about someone defending Casey because they disagree with you is atrocious, uncalled for and just plain wrong.

Great post, Blackbird! I agree completely, FWIW.

[dref99]

Blackbird, you are the one who needs to back up. You don't know me, or anything about me. I have absolutely no use for anyone who uses, and abuses others. I am judging Casey Anthony based on what I've seen, heard and read about her. I've stated my opinion, just as you have stated yours. I don't agree with you, so we can just agree to disagree. I have a conscience, and morals so I will not defend anyone who does not even report her child missing. On top of that, she lied to the authorities over, & over again. There is too much evidence against Casey, and no, I won't have anything good to say about someone like Casey Anthony. If you choose to worship her, & sing her "praises", that's your choice & opinion, not mine. That expression, "Birds of a feather flock together", seems pretty accurate. Convicts hang out with convicts, and they do that for a reason. I have no desire to associate with anyone who thinks it's alright to harm another human being. As people differ, so do opinions. I have heard your opinion, and you've heard mine. I have nothing in common with Casey Anthony, or anyone like her. If you don't like my posts, and my opinions you do have the option of not reading them. :read: I don't wish to have any further discussions with anyone who is obviously just looking for trouble. Those with that purpose in mind can just talk to themselves from here on out. Plain & simple.

A couple of general comments on the above quote - Bolding does not make a post any more important than any other - so I removed the bold - smiling at the end of a post does not make it agreeable to all - so I removed the smile - but most importantly, because someone disagrees with your post does not make them "just looking for trouble". It would be a boring message board if every one agreed about every tiny issue.

The specifics
1. No one on this thread has made any statement that can be construed as to worship her, & sing her "praises", in relation to Casey Anthony.
2. No one has defended her for not reporting her daughter missing
3. Apart from very few folks, everyone has a conscience and morals, but they do not have to state this in a posting - it is well understood by the majority. Attempting to understand why Casey may have harmed her daughter is very different to not having a conscience.
4. Convicts hang out with convicts - very true - unfortunately when you are in prison or jail, there is no-one else that you can "hang out" with.
5. Anyone is allowed to answer a post, it is your option not to read their answers, it is not your option to suggest - If you don't like my posts, and my opinions you do have the option of not reading them Forum posters decide for themselves who they wish to ignore.

Finally - you started a thread called "Special treatment for Casey Anthony" - most who have replied appear to think this is not happening at the current point in time. If you wish to post about your judgment of Casey Anthony use the general thread or find one with that specific topic.

jmo

[tulpje]

Great post dref99, I think it's better to just ignore this poster.

:wink:

[dref99]

Great post dref99, I think it's better to just ignore this poster.

:wink:

I don't run away from my view of events and I have only ever put 2 people on ignore in my time at CTV/IS boards. Not responding to contrary views gives unearned legitimacy to those views. The OP has not demonstrated that Casey is receiving any preferential treatment in jail. The content of the posts are simply rants against Casey Anthony.

I would be interested in knowing how one defines "preferential" in terms of treatment in jail - compared to the treatment of whom? By whom?

jmo

[~layla~]

99 your post is full of win.

as for Casey's special treatment... OCSO is more than likely following everything by the manual ... heck they may have implemented the manual as SOP at the moment of her last arrest because they see these types of people enough to know... CYA .... they are the type to sue someone IMO.

[kageykaren]

Whoa! just checked in to see what was happenning here only to find such discourse which serves to distract from Caylee's murder. I'm sure if KC was reading here she would be getting a thrill at the bickering going on all about her. KC has shown by her social networking that she may have the public right where her defense wants them. Ex. "Why do people kill people, who kill people" KC must have had a clue come across her mind before possibly murdering her daughter that she would have society asking this question. We are still confused by are emotional feelings about how a prisoner is treated. Spock logic forward, she is being held until trial, and the only real thing that has remained a constant since before her arrest is her hand to mouth exercizer she gets putting food to mouth. KC seemed to be familiar with this behavior before arrest. (hand to mouth) don't spank me for that! Now lets bring out the kind in posting or everyone will be on ignore. :confused::wink: Where's the :wub:

[Booklover]

Whoa! just checked in to see what was happenning here only to find such discourse which serves to distract from Caylee's murder. I'm sure if KC was reading here she would be getting a thrill at the bickering going on all about her. KC has shown by her social networking that she may have the public right where her defense wants them. Ex. "Why do people kill people, who kill people" KC must have had a clue come across her mind before possibly murdering her daughter that she would have society asking this question. We are still confused by are emotional feelings about how a prisoner is treated. Spock logic forward, she is being held until trial, and the only real thing that has remained a constant since before her arrest is her hand to mouth exercizer she gets putting food to mouth. KC seemed to be familiar with this behavior before arrest. (hand to mouth) don't spank me for that! Now lets bring out the kind in posting or everyone will be on ignore. :confused::wink: Where's the :wub:

Thanks, kageykaren! I knew there's a good reason why I like you.

[dref99]

Whoa! just checked in to see what was happenning here only to find such discourse which serves to distract from Caylee's murder. I'm sure if KC was reading here she would be getting a thrill at the bickering going on all about her. KC has shown by her social networking that she may have the public right where her defense wants them. Ex. "Why do people kill people, who kill people" KC must have had a clue come across her mind before possibly murdering her daughter that she would have society asking this question. We are still confused by are emotional feelings about how a prisoner is treated. Spock logic forward, she is being held until trial, and the only real thing that has remained a constant since before her arrest is her hand to mouth exercizer she gets putting food to mouth. KC seemed to be familiar with this behavior before arrest. (hand to mouth) don't spank me for that! Now lets bring out the kind in posting or everyone will be on ignore. :confused::wink: Where's the :wub:

I really have no idea what you are talking about. The title of this thread was "special treatment for Casey Anthony" - I don't believe it was a thread to post gibberish, which I think, is yet another attack (my polite word for bashing) on at least one of the Anthony family. Casey Anthony has been charged with murder. She is in jail awaiting trial, I have no idea "where the public is, or where the defense wants them". A jury will decide the outcome of her trial, not the public, nor a message board. I have even less of an idea what that has to do with special treatment in jail.

My comments, as always, have been polite and to the question at hand, as have most of the people who have posted on this thread.

The majority have indicated they believe Casey is treated in the jail in the same manner as every other prisoner. There is no special treatment. If you disagree, do please explain why you disagree, rather than attack other posters for voicing their opinions, that may just be different to yours.

jmo

[margaritaville]

Here's a bizarre theory my mind created last night as I was in that wierd Tinkerbell place (between awake and asleep)..

I envisioned Casey telling Cindy "This is all your fault!" (when the two of them were finally face to face and out of the earshot of others after Casey's arrest and first bailout... or maybe when the two of them were in that vehicle supposedly running from the media... doesn't matter when)...

and then, taking it one step further and beyond the brink, Casey tells Cindy they'd better cover the best they can for the her and make these charges go away or she'll tell Jose that Cindy did this and created the entire cover-up.

After all, says Casey, I never wanted this baby that you forced me to have; and after you tried to choke the life out of me that night, I totally lost it and did the same thing to your precious granddaughter. All your fault, mother!

If anything could create doubt in the minds of the jurors, this might be the easiest one for Jose.

Bizarre. And I hope I'm wrong!




I can see the blame being pushed off to Cindy.. But would anyone believe that cindy could duct tape Caylee's mouth shut?
I know she is only one step away from being the wicked witch of the south, but really? I'm not sure a jury would beleive that.

MOO

[kageykaren]

I really have no idea what you are talking about. The title of this thread was "special treatment for Casey Anthony" - I don't believe it was a thread to post gibberish, which I think, is yet another attack (my polite word for bashing) on at least one of the Anthony family. Casey Anthony has been charged with murder. She is in jail awaiting trial, I have no idea "where the public is, or where the defense wants them". A jury will decide the outcome of her trial, not the public, nor a message board. I have even less of an idea what that has to do with special treatment in jail.

My comments, as always, have been polite and to the question at hand, as have most of the people who have posted on this thread.

The majority have indicated they believe Casey is treated in the jail in the same manner as every other prisoner. There is no special treatment. If you disagree, do please explain why you disagree, rather than attack other posters for voicing their opinions, that may just be different to yours.

jmo "Giberish" :rolleyes::shrug: I'm :cool: with your comments as I think you care just as much as I about the murder of this child. I'm a fan of posting with the maturity it takes to try understand other peoples point of view. I didn't attack anyone personally so please don't think my post was in favor of one particular post and against another post. Silly!

[CRRJJ]

Good post, kageykaren! :smile: Casey is supposedly indigent, and the taxpayers will be footing the bill for her defense. How then is she entitled to all those high priced attorneys? I think that is most definitely special treatment. :huh:

Good post Booklover and I'm wondering the same thing. I always thought if you couldn't afford an attorney one would be appointed for you. I had no idea you had the right to go out and get, not necessarily the best, but some of the very best known attorneys you could find. And soooo many!!! So if that's the case she has nothing to worry about as far as getting them paid. But when you know how to work the system and no conscience or pride it won't matter to you. Sad.

[Katprint]

Casey's personal safety should be no more important than that of any other prisoner. That's my point. Perhaps they should have cameras on her 24/7 so that they can really ensure her personal safety. I think this should be done for all prisoners. That way the jail officials will know what the prisoners are doing at any given time of the day or night. That would be equal treatment, and it would ensure the safety of all prisoners. :smile:<unnecessary bolding removed by me to permit emphasis of relevant portion>

That's a good idea. I think the ideal for most jails would be to have 100% of the jail under camera surveillance, particularly the areas where there might be more than one person at a time, but it can be difficult (and expensive) to get a camera focused on every square inch.

The better-quality convalescent hospitals (aka "nursing homes") have 24/7 cameras in the patients' rooms to ensure the patients are never abused by staff. These cameras are costly to purchase, to maintain, to monitor and to preserve recordings. Impoverished elderly people who cannot afford to pay more than the government pittance tend to end up in cost-cutting facilities where there are no expensive video camera systems and, not coincidentally, where there are higher rates of patient abuse.

Of course, these patient care videos are NEVER released to the public. Normally, they are either destroyed (in the case of digital DVDs) or re-recorded over (in the case of videotapes) after a certain time period if there have been no complaints of abuse or neglect. If there is an allegation of abuse/neglect and the videos are presented as evidence, there is also usually a protective order in effect which limits who can view them (kind of like the order concerning Caylee's autopsy photos) to protect the privacy of the patient.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

[LisaM22]

think she has a better chance at the insanity plea - jmho

[Amy]

Good post, kageykaren! :smile: Casey is supposedly indigent, and the taxpayers will be footing the bill for her defense. How then is she entitled to all those high priced attorneys? I think that is most definitely special treatment. :huh:

Her attorneys have nothing to do w/special treatment by the jail or LE or the prosecution. Her attorneys have to do w/Baez and/or her parents being able to either bamboozle "high profile" and "high profile-wannabes" into taking her case, or they have been able to come up with lotsa dough to pay them.

The taxpayers won't be paying for the defense team. If the taxpayers were to foot the bill, it would be on the terms that other public defenders get for their services. And, @ least in most places, if the taxpayers are footing the bill, there is a limit to the number of attorneys and experts that will be provided and paid for.

[Amy]

Don't get me started with the money trail that may be affording this defense team. I'm not aware of KC being declared as indigent at this time. JB had an in camera meeting with the judge about how the defense was being paid and I believe it is sealed and the judge did not see a conflict of interest. Don't quote me on that last statement. I need to get the court ruling in trnascript to remember its entirety. If tax payers end up paying the defense team, I hope all indignent criminals being tried for murder scream to the roof tops that they want the same form of repusentation. Like that will ever happen. Seriously why have these educated men and women stuck to this case like velcro? I don't see what possible pay off all them get. Is it really about the blood sweat and tears of a job well done? Could it be for recognition? (I think not) , the royalties one may be offered in a book deal? These answers seem much to common of a pat answer. It appears to me that their is an undertone stirring beneath the surface that will arise to explain away such a form legal loyalty Seeing JB appearing like Whimpy of Popeye fame, "I'll gladly pay you Tues for your help with the defense today," just doesn't seem to sit right. :rolleyes:

I'm betting there is big money somewhere in the pile of horse manure. Possibly the "benefactor" who posted bond for her second bail out. Or, enough in book and movie deals to not only pay all these folks, but enough left over so that George and Cindy don't ever have to do an honest day's work again, but just troll in that boat @ their leisure. Or, enough to keep Casey in pork rinds behind bars for as long as she lives. And, I'm betting @ least SOME of them ARE looking for their own fame and fortune, being th's on talk shows, penning their own books, etc, all on the tails of one of the highest of "high profile" cases to date. But, this is JMO.

I don't see how the state of FL would change horses in the middle of the stream on paying for her defense. It kind of has to be up front, I'd think. Geragos had to petition to the state for monies after he supposedly spent the $1M he received for his work. And, surely if it did come down to Baez petitioning for the state to pay, the state would only pay as they would have any other public defender, and only in the number of attorneys and experts they allow all others using the public defense office. I just can't see them making an exception in this case--and I'm betting the good Judge Strickland and the prosecution, and many others would have something to say if Casey Anthony would be up for getting her dream team paid in the way THEY want to be. Even Leslie Abrams had to settle for public defender pay the second go-round with whichever Menendez bro she defended (and I know, that was CA, this is FL.)

[Amy]

Thank you for your opinion. :smile: Based on what I've heard on the Nancy Grace Show, if Casey is declared indigent and the taxpayers are footing the bill for her defense, she should not be entitled to all those high priced attorneys. In my opinion, she is receiving special treatment. She should be in the general population with the other prisoners. That again, is receiving special treatment. She isn't better than any of the other prisoners. Not by a long shot. :rolleyes:

Perhaps NG and JVM and those who talk about her being declared indigent and the tax payers footing the bill should look into what would happen in that case. IF she is declared indigent, would she be able to keep the attorneys now on her case? Probably, but would she be able to keep all of them..probably not. Would those whom she chooses to stay have to settle for public defender pay just like all the others? And, if so, how many of whom she chooses to stay will jump off the wagon? (There are some who might stay on for the fame and fortune they perceive being on a high profile case will bring them.) Would there be a cap on the number of experts the taxpayers would have to pay for --the same as for other indigent defendants? And would they have to settle for the smaller fee allowed by the state? And, if so, would they stay on, or jump ship?

Most prisoners who are perceived as being in danger of other prisoners, including "high profile" prisoners usually are segregated. The OSCO has said this, and there have been other cases where this also happens, and those jails say the same thing. So, she isn't getting "special treatment" she is being treated as others in her predicatment would be. IMO

[Amy]

Yes, the entire Anthony family is getting special treatment. IMO Cindy, George and the Milsteads should have been arrested for their caper chasing people through residential neighborhoods at high speed last week as well as Milstead impersonating a police officer. Apparently the trooper on the scene refused to intervene because the Anthonys "Have been through enough." Casey is getting special treatment which started when LE allowed her to spend 6-8 hours a day in her attorney's office when she was out on bond. Everyone knows that he was not discussing the case with her all day, every day. She would call in and ask to stay longer with Baez and she was allowed to do it. Whatever they were doing.

Also, it is customary for inmates to appear in jail attire when they are called to court for pre-trial hearings. It is usually only when a jury is present that they wear regular clothing. Casey struts in in blouses which are too tight and what appears to be Baez' pants. I think the judge was right in requiring her presence at these hearings, but not in allowing her civilian clothing. She should wear the jumpsuit like everyone else. We don't know what goes on daily in the jail, but I suspect Casey has manipulated herself in to a sweet deal of some kind during her incarceration.

IMO the whole bunch should be in jail. :cursing:
She isn't the first and won't be the last allowed to wear civilian clothing to hearings and motions.

[tulpje]

She isn't the first and won't be the last allowed to wear civilian clothing to hearings and motions.



Absolutely correct.
Phil Spector was even allowed to wear his wig.

[Amy]

Prosecution need the Anthony's to testify against their daughter at her trial.
If they are charged with a crime, they will plead the fifth, because they don't want to incriminate them self.
I'm sure their lawyer make sure of that.

:wink:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=plead%20the%20fifth

I'm not sure what value the A's testimony would have any more. Which version of whatever will they tell on the stand? How is the jury going to know which version is the truth? (And, I'm sure, when a question is asked, and answered, the attorney would remind them of other answers they gave under oath--the FBI/LE interviews, the depo.) They come up with a new version of instances just about every time they speak in public.

[Amy]

Excellent post, MyCharlie! :thumbsup: Keep them coming! I completely agree with everything you've said. It really makes you wonder why anyone would defend someone like Casey Anthony. She has no morals, and cares for no one except herself. She's a user, and a con-artist. All prisoners should be housed together. Extra cameras should be installed in strategic places so that jail officials will know what's going on at all times, day or night. Instead of lounging around all day watching TV, stuffing her face, and sitting on her lazy butt, Casey should be made to work ~ just like all the other prisoners. She is, most definitely receiving "special treatment". :rolleyes:

Exactly what work are all the other prisoners doing in the county jail? I hadn't read before about jobs other prisoners do. I guess there might be cleaning or kitchen duty, but it would seem there are more prisoners than tasks along that line.

[Amy]

Casey is allowed to lounge around all day stuffing her face, watching TV, and basically sitting on her lazy butt. She should be put to work just like any other prisoner. I'll say it again. In my opinion, Casey Anthony is getting "special treatment". We all know she's allergic to "work", but, that's beside the point. She's in prison for a reason. She's not there on vacation. :smile:

But, that's the point, she is NOT in PRISON. She is in the county jail. Accused of the crime of murder, but not CONVICTED yet by any means. She isn't in there for PUNISHMENT because she hasn't been convicted. She is being held until trial.

[Amy]

Casey's personal safety should be no more important than that of any other prisoner. That's my point. Perhaps they should have cameras on her 24/7 so that they can really ensure her personal safety. I think this should be done for all prisoners. That way the jail officials will know what the prisoners are doing at any given time of the day or night. That would be equal treatment, and it would ensure the safety of all prisoners. :smile:

I don't know how to get the information, but I'm betting Casey Anthony is not the only person in the OSCO who is in a solitary cell. She is just the one we hear about.

[Amy]

Blackbird, you are the one who needs to back up. You don't know me, or anything about me. I have absolutely no use for anyone who uses, and abuses others. I am judging Casey Anthony based on what I've seen, heard and read about her. I've stated my opinion, just as you have stated yours. I don't agree with you, so we can just agree to disagree. I have a conscience, and morals so I will not defend anyone who does not even report her child missing. On top of that, she lied to the authorities over, & over again. There is too much evidence against Casey, and no, I won't have anything good to say about someone like Casey Anthony. If you choose to worship her, & sing her "praises", that's your choice & opinion, not mine. That expression, "Birds of a feather flock together", seems pretty accurate. Convicts hang out with convicts, and they do that for a reason. I have no desire to associate with anyone who thinks it's alright to harm another human being. As people differ, so do opinions. I have heard your opinion, and you've heard mine. I have nothing in common with Casey Anthony, or anyone like her. If you don't like my posts, and my opinions you do have the option of not reading them. :read: I don't wish to have any further discussions with anyone who is obviously just looking for trouble. Those with that purpose in mind can just talk to themselves from here on out. Plain & simple. :smile:

No posts I have read have sung any praises for Casey Anthony, nor even her parents. All the posts I have read deal with LEGAL issues of a person IN JAIL, NOT IN PRISON. Whether you or I or anyone else likes it, those accused of crimes do have rights under our laws. It will be that way unless or until someone does something about it to make a change in the LAWS.

I do not see Casey Anthony as getting special privileges. She has yet to be declared indigent, so the outrage about taxpayers footing the bill for her current assemble team is premature. What and whom the state would be paying would be interesting information, cuz I don't see under any circumstances the state of FL paying those attorneys and experts their "going rates."

[Booklover]

Perhaps NG and JVM and those who talk about her being declared indigent and the tax payers footing the bill should look into what would happen in that case. IF she is declared indigent, would she be able to keep the attorneys now on her case? Probably, but would she be able to keep all of them..probably not. Would those whom she chooses to stay have to settle for public defender pay just like all the others? And, if so, how many of whom she chooses to stay will jump off the wagon? (There are some who might stay on for the fame and fortune they perceive being on a high profile case will bring them.) Would there be a cap on the number of experts the taxpayers would have to pay for --the same as for other indigent defendants? And would they have to settle for the smaller fee allowed by the state? And, if so, would they stay on, or jump ship?

Most prisoners who are perceived as being in danger of other prisoners, including "high profile" prisoners usually are segregated. The OSCO has said this, and there have been other cases where this also happens, and those jails say the same thing. So, she isn't getting "special treatment" she is being treated as others in her predicatment would be. IMO

Excellent post, Amy! :thumbsup: I completely understand what you're saying, and the reasons. I do realize what the rules are for high profile prisoners. I just think the rules should be changed, and that people charged with murder should be housed together. I know that this is not going to happen. I'm just stating my opinion in what I believe to be fair treatment for prisoners. IMO :smile:

[gnm109]

If the authorities were to place CA in the general jail population, there is an excellent chance that one of the others would make an attempt on her life. It is for that reason she is kept in a single cell. There's too much liability and, in any case, she has not been convicted of a crime yet. I see no special treatment.

As to her attorneys, she has made a private deal with them. They are either being paid or they are doing it pro bono, perhaps for the publicity. In either case, she was asked at the beginning whether she would be needing a public defender and she obviously got private counsel.

At this point, it would be difficult for her attorneys to drop the case for financial reasons. They would have to make a motion and inform the court that the money had run out. That sort of motion is seldom well-received by the Court.

Furthermore, if her attorneys were successful in leaving the case for some good reason and CA were then later found to be indigent (e.g. no funds, no likelihood of being able to get any), the Court would have no alternative to appointing the public defender. There are numerous cases on the books on the right to counsel where there is a possibility of a prison sentence if convicted. One notable example was Gideon v. Wainright. It also made a good movie with Henry Fonda playing an indigent defendant who was denied counsel.

Regardless of whether she has private attorneys or the public
defender, the case is the same. It doesn't look good for her. JMO, of course.

[Booklover]

If the authorities were to place CA in the general jail population, there is an excellent chance that one of the others would make an attempt on her life. It is for that reason she is kept in a single cell. There's too much liability and, in any case, she has not been convicted of a crime yet. I see no special treatment.

As to her attorneys, she has made a private deal with them. They are either being paid or they are doing it pro bono, perhaps for the publicity. In either case, she was asked at the beginning whether she would be needing a public defender and she obviously got private counsel.

At this point, it would be difficult for her attorneys to drop the case for financial reasons. They would have to make a motion and inform the court that the money had run out. That sort of motion is seldom well-received by the Court.

Furthermore, if her attorneys were successful in leaving the case for some good reason and CA were then later found to be indigent (e.g. no funds, no likelihood of being able to get any), the Court would have no alternative to appointing the public defender. There are numerous cases on the books on the right to counsel where there is a possibility of a prison sentence if convicted. One notable example was Gideon v. Wainright. It also made a good movie with Henry Fonda playing an indigent defendant who was denied counsel.

Regardless of whether she has private attorneys or the public
defender, the case is the same. It doesn't look good for her. JMO, of course.

Excellent post, gnm109! :thumbsup: While I do realize why they are isolating Casey, I also think she needs a dose of "reality" if only for a short while. IMO :laugh:

[gnm109]

Excellent post, gnm109! :thumbsup: While I do realize why they are isolating Casey, I also think she needs a dose of "reality" if only for a short while. IMO :laugh:


Well, thank you.
As to CA getting a dose of reality, that's coming when they finally complete the trial. I feel sure that she will be found guilty of something but I don't see it as a death penalty case. The DA has evidence for sure but they really have little on her intent. They can infer intent but that's for the evidence to show.

Was it an accident that she attempted to cover up? Did the child die before being placed in the plastic bags? Or was she smothered by her mother and then bagged and tossed out? We certainly have suspicions but not too much that's firm.

I used to defend criminals when I was working and I discovered that many of them are pathological liars and have no feeling for those around them. The prisons are full of people liike that. It got to where I didn't want to be around them anymore, even for pay. CA is one of those.

I wish the DA's office had more facts because I'm squarely in their corner. CA needs to be off the street, probably for the remainder of her miserable life.

I wish that the trial would be televised.

Thanks again. :smile:

[Booklover]

Well, thank you.
As to CA getting a dose of reality, that's coming when they finally complete the trial. I feel sure that she will be found guilty of something but I don't see it as a death penalty case. The DA has evidence for sure but they really have little on her intent. They can infer intent but that's for the evidence to show.

Was it an accident that she attempted to cover up? Did the child die before being placed in the plastic bags? Or was she smothered by her mother and then bagged and tossed out? We certainly have suspicions but not too much that's firm.

I used to defend criminals when I was working and I discovered that many of them are pathological liars and have no feeling for those around them. The prisons are full of people liike that. It got to where I didn't want to be around them anymore, even for pay. CA is one of those.

I wish the DA's office had more facts because I'm squarely in their corner. CA needs to be off the street, probably for the remainder of her miserable life.

I wish that the trial would be televised.

Thanks again. :smile:

Hi, gnm109! :smile: You're welcome! Even though you used to defend criminals, you still seem like such a nice person. Nothing personal, but, how were you able to defend these people? :confused: Your posts are fantastic, by the way. I look forward to reading many more of them. While I do realize that everyone has the right to an attorney, some of these criminals should be under the jails. Most especially anyone who harms children. I firmly believe that everyone has choices. One can either choose to live their life as a good person, or a bad one. Criminals seem to think they shouldn't be held accountable for their actions. I see this as a major problem for decent, law abiding citizens. IMO

[gnm109]

Hi, gnm109! :smile: You're welcome! Even though you used to defend criminals, you still seem like such a nice person. Nothing personal, but, how were you able to defend these people? :confused: Your posts are fantastic, by the way. I look forward to reading many more of them. While I do realize that everyone has the right to an attorney, some of these criminals should be under the jails. Most especially anyone who harms children. I firmly believe that everyone has choices. One can either choose to live their life as a good person, or a bad one. Criminals seem to think they shouldn't be held accountable for their actions. I see this as a major problem for decent, law abiding citizens. IMO

I'm sure that most of us would agree that even criminals should be treated fairly. Our system of justice demands that due process be afforded. That means that the provisions of the Constitution that provide for a fair trial, right to an attorney, right to confront one's accuser and to bring evidence, among other things, should be followed closely.

The defense attorney's role is to make certain that the defendant gets his or her day in court and that exculpatory evidence is brought and inculpatory evidence refuted, if possible. In that regard the defense attorney is exercising these rights on behalf of the client. It's not necessary to approve of the act for which the defendant is on trial, it's not even necessary to like the defendant. Lord knows some of them are rather unpleasant.

In many cases, the defense counsel can work to determine exactly what the charge should be. For example, there is a homicide. Is it first degree murder, second degree murder, felony murder, homicide in self defense, justifiable homicide, excusable, negligence or? The attorney's job is to zero in on the facts and, assuming the defendant did some crime, help determine just what the crime might have been. There's no real conflict in that. Ultimately, it's just another job. It sometimes is exciting, though. LOL.

[Jupiter]

Great post, Blackbird! I agree completely, FWIW.

I agree with you as well:thumbup:

[Booklover]

I'm sure that most of us would agree that even criminals should be treated fairly. Our system of justice demands that due process be afforded. That means that the provisions of the Constitution that provide for a fair trial, right to an attorney, right to confront one's accuser and to bring evidence, among other things, should be followed closely.

The defense attorney's role is to make certain that the defendant gets his or her day in court and that exculpatory evidence is brought and inculpatory evidence refuted, if possible. In that regard the defense attorney is exercising these rights on behalf of the client. It's not necessary to approve of the act for which the defendant is on trial, it's not even necessary to like the defendant. Lord knows some of them are rather unpleasant.

In many cases, the defense counsel can work to determine exactly what the charge should be. For example, there is a homicide. Is it first degree murder, second degree murder, felony murder, homicide in self defense, justifiable homicide, excusable, negligence or? The attorney's job is to zero in on the facts and, assuming the defendant did some crime, help determine just what the crime might have been. There's no real conflict in that. Ultimately, it's just another job. It sometimes is exciting, though. LOL.

Another excellent post, gnm109! :smile: Have you ever had to defend a pedophile? They cannot be rehabilitated by any means. I think they should be permanently removed from society. If that were to happen, the lives of so many children would be saved. Weren't you afraid of some of your clients? I watch a lot of crime shows. I'm sure you might have guessed. :laugh: What do you think about Casey's attorney, Jose Baez? :wink:

[gnm109]

Another excellent post, gnm109! :smile: Have you ever had to defend a pedophile? They cannot be rehabilitated by any means. I think they should be permanently removed from society. If that were to happen, the lives of so many children would be saved. Weren't you afraid of some of your clients? I watch a lot of crime shows. I'm sure you might have guessed. :laugh: What do you think about Casey's attorney, Jose Baez? :wink:

No, I never defended any sex criminals at all. I stayed away from that end of the business.

Nowadays, in most states they are indeed given long sentences. In California, for example, even after they complete their sentences, they can be given indefinite civil confinement. That's the coming thing in law enforcement. It takes care of the problem of recidivism. Once they are sentenced to extended civil confinement, it's pretty much the end of the line. It's possibly a life sentence with no end since in order to be released they must prove that they are rehabilitated. That's a "Catch 22" for them.

Most of my criminal clients were DUI's, thieves, batterers and embezzlers. Yes, some of those were rather scary.

[n/t]

I'm lost. What does the poll have to do with Casey getting special treatment?

I guess I was expecting a Yes or No but I see something totally unrelated to the topic of this thread. :shrug:

[Amy]

I'm lost. What does the poll have to do with Casey getting special treatment?

I guess I was expecting a Yes or No but I see something totally unrelated to the topic of this thread. :shrug:

I hadn't noticed that. There were quite a number of single threads on different topics started recently--maybe CW combined some? I haven't gone back to the first of the thread to see if there are posts about the poll mingling in the posts about the treatment. :shrug:

Just went back and looked @ the names of the threads, and seems most of the individual ones are gone--either removed or put in with other threads.

[september]

I think you need one more choice on your poll.....all of the above

[Booklover]

No, I never defended any sex criminals at all. I stayed away from that end of the business.

Nowadays, in most states they are indeed given long sentences. In California, for example, even after they complete their sentences, they can be given indefinite civil confinement. That's the coming thing in law enforcement. It takes care of the problem of recidivism. Once they are sentenced to extended civil confinement, it's pretty much the end of the line. It's possibly a life sentence with no end since in order to be released they must prove that they are rehabilitated. That's a "Catch 22" for them.

Most of my criminal clients were DUI's, thieves, batterers and embezzlers. Yes, some of those were rather scary.

Hi, gnm109! :smile: It just seems there are too many sex offenders to keep track of, especially pedophiles. :scared: Law Enforcement sure has their work cut out for them. No wonder the Courts are so busy. I admire your courage, and most of all honesty. :smile:

[SunnySideUp]

Do you think Casey Anthony is getting special treatment? If so, why? :mellow: If not, why? :mellow:


I don't think she's getting special treatment, but it makes me sick that she's still being treated like a human being even AFTER murdering her only child in cold blood.

I'm wondering if the defense will try and blame the guy who found little Caylee's remains for her murder. That's why I answered "stranger" on the poll.

[gnm109]

I don't think she's getting special treatment, but it makes me sick that she's still being treated like a human being even AFTER murdering her only child in cold blood.

I'm wondering if the defense will try and blame the guy who found little Caylee's remains for her murder. That's why I answered "stranger" on the poll.

Hello and welcome.

I'm fairly certain that most people who post here will share your sentiment in one fashion or another. I'm willing to be patient and let the legal process take its course.

It will be interesting to see what sort of case the prosecution can fashion out of the evidence that they have collected so far. It would certainly have been better in "the old days" with Court TV broadcasting the entire trial "gavel to gavel' as they used to advertise. Like Spector II we will probably read about it in the newspaper.

I think the fellow who discovered the child's remains should be safe. He may get through this with little more than some "ruffled feathers". Nonetheless, It's a sobering comment that someone who was legitimately in the area and finds the body that everyone was looking for should be under any form of suspicion. He's certainly innocent in my mind.

Sometimes when we try to do the right thing, we may wind up needing a lawyer. It is reminiscent of Richard Jewell, the hapless security guard who discovered the bomb in Atlanta Georgia. He was crucified in the press to the point that his life was ruined. It may have even shortened his life.

Then there was the man who deflected the handgun when Sarah Jane Moore attempted to shoot former president Gerald R. Ford in Sacramento. Reportedly she used a .45 caliber revolver and, but for the quick thinking of a bystander, the president might have been killed. The poor man got little thanks and was treated rather shamefullly when his homosexuality was discovered and proclaimed to he world in the press. That hardly seems relevant or fair, does it?

I could go on but the idea that "no good deed goes unpunished" comes to mind with only those two examples. Lets wait and see.

[Details]

I don't think she's getting special treatment, but it makes me sick that she's still being treated like a human being even AFTER murdering her only child in cold blood.

I'm wondering if the defense will try and blame the guy who found little Caylee's remains for her murder. That's why I answered "stranger" on the poll.Everyone should be treated like a human being - period.

And with our court system, she cannot be treated as a murderer by them until she is convicted of that crime - and this is a VERY good thing. We've seen vigilante justice in the past - it's hit and miss, gets the wrong person at times, other times becomes so bloodthirsty that it's worse than the original crime.

She should be treated like anyone else up for trial for murder. And to treat someone as less than a human being diminishes our own humanity.

[Details]

Excellent post, gnm109! :thumbsup: While I do realize why they are isolating Casey, I also think she needs a dose of "reality" if only for a short while. IMO :laugh:What would a 'dose of reality' be? Exposure to people who might indulge the vengeance fantasies of the public on her? Abuse? Punishment?

She's innocent until proven guilty - and when proven guilty, her punishment will be a legal one, not oriented to allowing whatever revenge a bunch of criminals can think up.

To let her be exposed in order to hurt her, without a trial - that's sick. We've had people 'everyone' knew were guilty turn out to be innocent before - to allow someone who hasn't so much as been convicted to be hurt, exposed to danger, not protected from those who think it's OK and fun to hurt someone because of what you believe they did - it's not only wrong - but it would have hurt and killed many innocent people.

We have a system of JUSTICE here - not revenge, not 'everyone knows' justice, but laws and an orderly system. Punishment is by law - not by allowing some sick criminal who loves hurting people to do whatever they can think of. Jails and prisons are not intended to allow that to happen.

[Imperfect4]

I believe if she's receiving special treatment, it's in the form of an army of defense attorneys and "experts," by all accounts unpaid. Imo, that's very special treatment. However, it's not the fault of our justice system at this stage, but of our society as a whole, imo. Greed and a desire for fame has overcome us. It's an ugly thing to witness.

It makes me a bit uncomfortable to see a lot of discussion about how righteous it is to keep the accused murderer from harm, and to insure that come hell or high water, her rights are protected. For some reason, the vision of a 2 year-old child with duct tape over her nose and mouth is what I see as I read all the words in defense of the accused's rights.

After reading some of the posts here, I'd like to add a word or two for the murder victim, Casey's 2 year-old daughter.

In terms of our legal system, Casey is "innocent until proven guilty." That's not necessarily a true statement, just a legal one.

Regardless of what the jury decides, the 2 year-old will still be dead. The jury's decision doesn't change the truth. Casey might be acquitted, declared "innocent" of any crime against her daughter. Again ... that would be a legal decision, but not necessarily nor likely the truth. Just as innocents are convicted of crimes, so are guilty parties set free by our justice system.

I'd be much more inclined to vigorously defend the accused's rights while awaiting trial if our system of justice had not mutated from a search for the truth, to a competition to win freedom for the accused, regardless of the truth, and regardless of the cost.

[gnm109]

I believe if she's receiving special treatment, it's in the form of an army of defense attorneys and "experts," by all accounts unpaid. Imo, that's very special treatment. However, it's not the fault of our justice system at this stage, but of our society as a whole, imo. Greed and a desire for fame has overcome us. It's an ugly thing to witness.

It makes me a bit uncomfortable to see a lot of discussion about how righteous it is to keep the accused murderer from harm, and to insure that come hell or high water, her rights are protected. For some reason, the vision of a 2 year-old child with duct tape over her nose and mouth is what I see as I read all the words in defense of the accused's rights.

After reading some of the posts here, I'd like to add a word or two for the murder victim, Casey's 2 year-old daughter.

In terms of our legal system, Casey is "innocent until proven guilty." That's not necessarily a true statement, just a legal one.

Regardless of what the jury decides, the 2 year-old will still be dead. The jury's decision doesn't change the truth. Casey might be acquitted, declared "innocent" of any crime against her daughter. Again ... that would be a legal decision, but not necessarily nor likely the truth. Just as innocents are convicted of crimes, so are guilty parties set free by our justice system.

I'd be much more inclined to vigorously defend the accused's rights while awaiting trial if our system of justice had not mutated from a search for the truth, to a competition to win freedom for the accused, regardless of the truth, and regardless of the cost.


An excellent post and I agree wholeheartedly.

The issue of "innocent until proven guilty" harks back to the forming of this country and the revulsion of the Founding Fathers (and Mothers!) for the English Criminal Law where children and other unfortunates could be summarily hanged for alleged "crimes against the Crown", some of which amounted to no more than stealing a crust of bread. They wanted some guarantee that the issue of guilt could be left for a jury of one's peers.

At the same time they abolished debtor's prison and ensured that there would be bankruptcy laws in place to protect ctizens from unwarranted imprisonment.

In modern times, however, the concept of innocent until proven guilty has become a legal fiction since it's quite common for the accused to be imprisoned in a jail awaiting trial for years if need be.

With regard to CA, she's where she belongs at this point in time. The authorities are correct in keeping her isolated from other prisoners since, if she were to be killed or injured, there is almost limitless liability.

While this issue has been much discussed, I can't see any other way in which it could be handled. This is after all a death penalty case and she is entitled to see her lawyers. Putting her in with the local jail population would be an almost certain death since many of the others are in for murder as well and would stop at nothing to remove her.

JMO.

[Details]

I've followed too many cases with factually innocent defendants to be casual about the rights of someone who is on trial to be properly treated. In some - a great many people were POSITIVE they did the crime, tons of evidence, and a horrible crime - one worse than this case (Dale Akiki) - had those people's wish for revenge, for allowing attacks in jail, etc. been granted, innocent people would have been hurt, maimed, tortured, raped or killed. I remember posts hoping for all kinds of things to happen to the grandfather of the victim in the Couey case, before they found the real killer - based on a previous conviction, and the improbability of anyone managing to snatch a child from her own home, he was presumed guilty. And the people who still think Stephanie Crowe's brother killed her. Not to mention those lesser known cases we hear about every here and there of an innocent man being released from jail. We can be pretty sure - but the trial is a good and necessary check.

Of course she should be isolated in jail - just like any other high profile or otherwise at risk defendant. And likewise when convicted.

We are not barbarians - we are not at the same level as the criminals - we do not punish with rape and assault and whatever else people might imagine would happen were she put in general population. This is for justice - nothing else. The punishment is LWOP or the death penalty - not us allowing torture by inmate - we are not as sick as they are.

Yeah - we think we know all the answers in this case - and if we do (and I think we do) - were this about revenge, she'd deserve the worst we can do. Since this is about JUSTICE - she deserves a fair trial, a conviction (a fair trial should be one that arrives at the truth), and a minimum of LWOP - which will be no small degree of torture itself.


She is getting lawyers who want to use the high profile of this case as an effective advertisement for themselves. That's a benefit not everyone gets, but it's not special treatment - she's just more attractive fodder to some vultures than others are. I don't expect it'll help her in the least.


Nothing we do to this mother will help her victim in the least. She's beyond our help.

[Katprint]

I believe if she's receiving special treatment, it's in the form of an army of defense attorneys and "experts," by all accounts unpaid. Imo, that's very special treatment. However, it's not the fault of our justice system at this stage, but of our society as a whole, imo. Greed and a desire for fame has overcome us. It's an ugly thing to witness.
Well, I do volunteer unpaid legal work for the Voluntary Legal Services Program of Northern California. All attorneys are encouraged to provide "pro bono" services by their various State Bar Associations.

In Casey Anthony's case, I think she got what she paid for with regard to Jose Baez. Terence Lenamon did a great job for her with his pleasant, effective letter to the prosecution which got the death penalty off the table her prior to Caylee's body being discovered, but I saw nothing to indicate that he was doing it out of "greed" or a "desire for fame." To the contrary, Mr. Lenamon appeared to be motivated solely by his sincere concern about the inadequate job that Baez had been doing. I think Andrea Lyon joined the defense team out of similar motivations i.e. she is fundamentally philosophically opposed to the death penalty and she believes Casey will be put to death if Casey's defense is left up to Baez and LKB. I am aware that the publicity from the Anthony case will probably help increase sales of her newly published book and perhaps that played a role as well, but she already had an established reputation fighting against the death penalty in many other cases.

It makes me a bit uncomfortable to see a lot of discussion about how righteous it is to keep the accused murderer from harm, and to insure that come hell or high water, her rights are protected. For some reason, the vision of a 2 year-old child with duct tape over her nose and mouth is what I see as I read all the words in defense of the accused's rights.

After reading some of the posts here, I'd like to add a word or two for the murder victim, Casey's 2 year-old daughter.

In terms of our legal system, Casey is "innocent until proven guilty." That's not necessarily a true statement, just a legal one.

Regardless of what the jury decides, the 2 year-old will still be dead. The jury's decision doesn't change the truth. Casey might be acquitted, declared "innocent" of any crime against her daughter. Again ... that would be a legal decision, but not necessarily nor likely the truth. Just as innocents are convicted of crimes, so are guilty parties set free by our justice system.

I'd be much more inclined to vigorously defend the accused's rights while awaiting trial if our system of justice had not mutated from a search for the truth, to a competition to win freedom for the accused, regardless of the truth, and regardless of the cost.
The presumption of innocence until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt is merely a jury instruction. (See http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/Law508/InnocentGuilty.htm for further historical information.) There are LOTS of jury instructions out there, thousands of them. Standard and special jury instructions. Civil and criminal jury instructions. State and federal jury instructions.

People who are on juries take an oath to follow the jury instructions. However, people who are not on juries (i.e. the rest of us) have no obligation to follow jury instructions. They don't have to keep an open mind. They can believe that people who have been charged and arrested are probably guilty. They can believe that police officers and prosecutors are lazy and pursue the easiest target - as in the Jon Benet Ramsey case, and also in the Elizabeth Smart case with the initial focus on her uncle as the likeliest suspect. They can read forensic reports, witness statements and documentary evidence, and form their opinions as to guilt or innocence before any trial ever starts. They can hope that something bad will happen to the accused. They can do/believe whatever they want.

What will NOT happen is that the jury will NOT declare Casey "innocent." Jurors in the U.S. determine if the defendants have been proven "guilty" or "not guilty" beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case (or "liable" or "not liable" based on a preponderance of the evidence - i.e. more likely than not - in a civil case.) Some countries allow judges and/or juries to declare that a defendant is "innocent" but that is not an option in the U.S.

It is also worth noting that the law NEVER requires that the culpable party should suffer the fate of their victim(s). Even when the death penalty is imposed on a special circumstance murderer, the murderer is executed as humanely as possible even if the murderer's victim died in a terrible manner. That is not a special rule for Casey.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

[Imperfect4]

Well, I do volunteer unpaid legal work for the Voluntary Legal Services Program of Northern California. All attorneys are encouraged to provide "pro bono" services by their various State Bar Associations.

I think we can agree, though, that the intent of encouraging pro bono services is not to increase the fame and longer-term bankability of attorneys?

In Casey Anthony's case, I think she got what she paid for with regard to Jose Baez. Terence Lenamon did a great job for her with his pleasant, effective letter to the prosecution which got the death penalty off the table her prior to Caylee's body being discovered, but I saw nothing to indicate that he was doing it out of "greed" or a "desire for fame." To the contrary, Mr. Lenamon appeared to be motivated solely by his sincere concern about the inadequate job that Baez had been doing. I think Andrea Lyon joined the defense team out of similar motivations i.e. she is fundamentally philosophically opposed to the death penalty and she believes Casey will be put to death if Casey's defense is left up to Baez and LKB. I am aware that the publicity from the Anthony case will probably help increase sales of her newly published book and perhaps that played a role as well, but she already had an established reputation fighting against the death penalty in many other cases.

Lenamon and probably NeJame were above board, imo. My personal jury is still out on Lyon. While she does seem truly, passionately anti-DP, seems to me there were less high profile cases toward which she could have put her efforts. The rest of the attorneys and pro bono "experts" involved with Casey and her family appear to me to be in it for the notoriety.

The presumption of innocence until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt is merely a jury instruction. (See http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/Law508/InnocentGuilty.htm for further historical information.) There are LOTS of jury instructions out there, thousands of them. Standard and special jury instructions. Civil and criminal jury instructions. State and federal jury instructions.

People who are on juries take an oath to follow the jury instructions. However, people who are not on juries (i.e. the rest of us) have no obligation to follow jury instructions. They don't have to keep an open mind. They can believe that people who have been charged and arrested are probably guilty. They can believe that police officers and prosecutors are lazy and pursue the easiest target - as in the Jon Benet Ramsey case, and also in the Elizabeth Smart case with the initial focus on her uncle as the likeliest suspect. They can read forensic reports, witness statements and documentary evidence, and form their opinions as to guilt or innocence before any trial ever starts. They can hope that something bad will happen to the accused. They can do/believe whatever they want.

I believed initially something was up with both the Ramseys and the Smarts. But I withheld judgment and continued to watch things unfold. Ultimately, and long before either story played out, I reached my own opinion neither family was at fault.

What will NOT happen is that the jury will NOT declare Casey "innocent." Jurors in the U.S. determine if the defendants have been proven "guilty" or "not guilty" beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case (or "liable" or "not liable" based on a preponderance of the evidence - i.e. more likely than not - in a civil case.) Some countries allow judges and/or juries to declare that a defendant is "innocent" but that is not an option in the U.S.

The term "innocent," in this particular case, goes up one side of me and down the other. I can't believe I'm hearing the word from not only Baez and LKB, but also Andrea Lyon. Regardless of how Caylee died, no mother who "misplaces" her toddler and doesn't bother to alert anyone for a month, is "innocent."

It is also worth noting that the law NEVER requires that the culpable party should suffer the fate of their victim(s). Even when the death penalty is imposed on a special circumstance murderer, the murderer is executed as humanely as possible even if the murderer's victim died in a terrible manner. That is not a special rule for Casey.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

I'm not an eye-for-an-eye sort of person, however, I do like people exposed who are trying to lie their way out of their problems. As long as Casey is kept off the street and can never bring another child into the world, I'm good. If her immediate family members have broken laws, I'd like to see them punished as well. Imo, the entire family bears some burden for Caylee's fate, and a message should be sent to any family listening that none of how that child lived or died is okay, or acceptable.

[kellabeck]

Do you think Casey Anthony is getting special treatment? If so, why? :mellow: If not, why? :mellow:

But your poll is about who the defense will blame.... I'm confused.

[Dells]

But your poll is about who the defense will blame.... I'm confused.

I think that a couple of different threads got merged together...

[BobbisAngel]

She has a cell for herself, so that in a way would be special treatment. She gets more money to spend in jail then anyone else. But that's because people send her money. In a way, she has a good life. She's taken care of, well fed, free medical and dental, plenty of sleep with lots of books to read. What more do you want? So right now, she has it good. Further down the road, different story.


I know this was written on the 9th of this month but I just wondered if you think people will continue to send Casey money after having read the autopsy report or at least hearing about the duct tape and how it was wrapped and the layers of it, etc? If I had been sending her money....after reading the autopsy report she would never see another cent from me!

[BobbisAngel]

I believe if she's receiving special treatment, it's in the form of an army of defense attorneys and "experts," by all accounts unpaid. Imo, that's very special treatment. However, it's not the fault of our justice system at this stage, but of our society as a whole, imo. Greed and a desire for fame has overcome us. It's an ugly thing to witness.

It makes me a bit uncomfortable to see a lot of discussion about how righteous it is to keep the accused murderer from harm, and to insure that come hell or high water, her rights are protected. For some reason, the vision of a 2 year-old child with duct tape over her nose and mouth is what I see as I read all the words in defense of the accused's rights.

After reading some of the posts here, I'd like to add a word or two for the murder victim, Casey's 2 year-old daughter.

In terms of our legal system, Casey is "innocent until proven guilty." That's not necessarily a true statement, just a legal one.

Regardless of what the jury decides, the 2 year-old will still be dead. The jury's decision doesn't change the truth. Casey might be acquitted, declared "innocent" of any crime against her daughter. Again ... that would be a legal decision, but not necessarily nor likely the truth. Just as innocents are convicted of crimes, so are guilty parties set free by our justice system.

I'd be much more inclined to vigorously defend the accused's rights while awaiting trial if our system of justice had not mutated from a search for the truth, to a competition to win freedom for the accused, regardless of the truth, and regardless of the cost.


You are right on. I'm sick of hearing about the rights of the accused. It is only obvious that Casey killed that baby girl and that she is a sociopath and has probably been for a long time. Screw her rights. She didn't think of the right Caylee had to live and she had many options aside of murder. The witch just wanted her freedom...and she took out the rage she felt towards her mom after the fight they had... on her little girl. The killers end up wth more rights then the victims all around whether the victim lives or dies. When the jury hands down the verdict on this case I am going to shout for joy because there is only one verdict that they can hand over. I want to see Casey's face when she hears GUILTY. This jury isn't going to like Casey Anthony any more than the jury liked Jessica Lunsfords killer who buried her alive. Casey might as well have buried Caylee alive instead of smothering her with duct tape!

[Imperfect4]

Warning: Long rant ahead ...

I've never been a victim of a violent crime, but once upon a time, I heard a story about someone who'd shot an intruder breaking into his house. Upon being shot, the criminal fell outside the window or doorway, and the homeowner ended up doing time because the criminal didn't fall the right way -- into the house. The message was the homeowner didn't have a right to shoot the intruder when he shot him, but should've waited until he was fully inside the house before shooting him.

For some reason, that story really affected me. I imagined the fear of the homeowner and how unfair it was he was punished for protecting his home from a criminal. That story caused me to imagine all sorts of scenarios in which I was a victim and the perpetrator had all the protections of our legal system.

I imagined if I'd been raped, for example, and how our justice system would crank into gear to make sure the rapist received every protection available, including an attorney who would fight to get him acquitted by whatever means possible. And I thought of how my life would be changed forever after the attack, and how our justice system would simply expect me to pick up the pieces by myself and make the best of it -- while the perpetrator was provided all his "rights" under the law as the accused.

At the end of all my mental meanderings, I realized it's not good to be a victim (duh), and I should do everything within my power to prevent myself from ever becoming one. Because once you're a victim, it's all about defending the criminal who harmed you.

Defenseless two year-olds don't have the choices I have with regard to personal protection. That's why it's up to the adults in their lives to insure their safety. Whenever I think of Caylee Anthony, I think not only of her murder by the accused -- her own mother. I also think of how no one else in her life protected her from the accused murderer. She had no rights, apparently, in her short life.

And now that she's gone, dead from what appears to be a brutal murder, from my perspective she still has no rights. Our justice system is all about making sure her accused murderer is protected, defended, and given her day in court.

The state of Florida will speak for Caylee during the trial, but the rules of the game in a criminal trial have the defense trying to deny and obscure the truth of what happened to her every step of the way. So her little voice can only be heard, so to speak, over the objections of those who are attempting to get her accused murderer set free.

Caylee, a defenseless two year-old with no choices except the ones her caretakers made for her, no longer has the right to spend another day on God's green earth. But I'm supposed to stay up nights worrying about her accused murderer's protection and rights.

Do innocent people get accused and convicted of crimes they didn't commit? Yes. Does that bother me? Yes. Does it happen often enough I need to switch my concern from victims to the accused? No.

There are many more victims in the world whose lives have been destroyed, both literally and figuratively, than there are falsely accused and convicted innocents. If anyone has statistics to the contrary, I'd like to see them.

[Details]

I know this was written on the 9th of this month but I just wondered if you think people will continue to send Casey money after having read the autopsy report or at least hearing about the duct tape and how it was wrapped and the layers of it, etc? If I had been sending her money....after reading the autopsy report she would never see another cent from me!I don't know anyone who is doing that - haven't seen much of anyone who thinks she is innocent - although there are always some for anyone.

However - just my guess - anyone sending her money probably thought her innocent. So any sad new details of how Caylee died wouldn't change anything - that'd be the fault of the 'real' killer. :rolleyes:

[Details]

You are right on. I'm sick of hearing about the rights of the accused. It is only obvious that Casey killed that baby girl and that she is a sociopath and has probably been for a long time. Screw her rights....I've seen many cases where people express opinions like this about the suspect - and then the suspect turns out to be innocent. People ready to ignore the rights, forget the trial, and really give that child molesting, torturing, evil pedophile what he deserves. Do to him what he did to all those little kids in the preschool. Dale Akkiki. A bunch of little kids described the horrible satanic things he did to them and others at the school.

He was innocent. Lots of people were ready to "screw his rights" too.

That's far from the only case. Probably one of the worst - but far from the only one.

There is good reason for the rights of the accused - and that is so we do not become the monsters we want to destroy, by hurting the innocent. There's good reason for a trial - to be sure we are right. And because we are not the monsters they are - we simply lock them away from society - we don't set up prisons to be some type of bloody pit where the worst of the worst can hurt each other for our enjoyment.

So - yes - she should be held in jail - and in prison later - so that she cannot be attacked by other inmates - solitary if necessary - prison is the punishment we sentence her to - not assault, rape, and murder. And yes, she should have a lawyer, and whatever ethical defense they can muster. And if some lawyer wants to volunteer for her case - that's how it is, and not a bad thing.

That's not forgetting Caylee - she's what the case is all about - making sure we have her actual murderer, then sentencing them to a JUST punishment to make sure it will not happen again (not with this murderer anyway).

[Details]

Warning: Long rant ahead ...

I've never been a victim of a violent crime, but once upon a time, I heard a story about someone who'd shot an intruder breaking into his house. Upon being shot, the criminal fell outside the window or doorway, and the homeowner ended up doing time because the criminal didn't fall the right way -- into the house. The message was the homeowner didn't have a right to shoot the intruder when he shot him, but should've waited until he was fully inside the house before shooting him.

For some reason, that story really affected me. I imagined the fear of the homeowner and how unfair it was he was punished for protecting his home from a criminal. That story caused me to imagine all sorts of scenarios in which I was a victim and the perpetrator had all the protections of our legal system.....Maybe - before you set up your entire life and ethical system on this one story - you should research it a bit more? I went looking for it - I don't find it. I find page after page of stories like it - where the homeowner was considered entirely justified. Not one where they were not.

The criminal does not have more rights than you. They're charged, they're given their chance for defense - and indeed we do make sure that is given, because they could be innocent.

Have you read the stories of the innocent sentenced to prison for something they didn't do, and imagine yourselves in their shoes?

Here's a nice list of stories that don't match yours:
http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/2009_06_01_archive.html
A masked suspect was shot and killed outside an Altamonte Springs home....A woman woke up when she heard someone trying to kick in the door of her home. Seminole County Sheriff's deputies say that's when her husband went to the door and shot twice at Donald Salaam. Salaam, 21, was hit once in the chest. (Details: Note - he was outside, hadn't even succeeded in kicking in the door)...Investigators say it appears the homeowner was justified.Of course there are cases like this one - which are often slanted as the evil justice system going after a person for self defense - but where it's really something that looks like murder: http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2008/01/intruder_shot_homeowner_faces.html#post - he shoots his houseguest - then claims the man was an intruder. Now - if you read a story from him, or someone interested in making you feel paranoid, all they have to do is eliminate anything about the dead guy being a houseguest - and there you go, the perfect 'injustice' story. Or this one http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2008/10/kent_county_prosecutor_william.html where it's a guy shooting at people on his property - a bunch of dumb kids TPing his tree!



There are times when the justice system gets it wrong on both sides, no doubt - the innocent are prosecuted (however - this is all the more reason for the rights of the accused!), the guilty are freed - but most of it works, and quite well. In Texas, I found a lot about the case where a homeowner was indeed charged for shooting and killing a teen breaking into the house - his NEIGHBOR's house - the neighbors were not home, so he wasn't acting in self defense, nor in defense of his neighbors, only in defense of property - he was acquitted. Found one where the homeowner shot the intruder only to find out it was his grandson - that was ruled justified - the grandson really did break into the house to steal alcohol.

[Amy]

Everyone should be treated like a human being - period.

And with our court system, she cannot be treated as a murderer by them until she is convicted of that crime - and this is a VERY good thing. We've seen vigilante justice in the past - it's hit and miss, gets the wrong person at times, other times becomes so bloodthirsty that it's worse than the original crime.

She should be treated like anyone else up for trial for murder. And to treat someone as less than a human being diminishes our own humanity.

Exactly. I don't have any warm fuzzies in my heart for Casey Anthony, and I quite frankly am of the belief that she murdered her daughter. But I am not the judge nor the jury, and will have to wait for official confirmation after the trial. Until that time, I am satisfied that Ms Anthony is being treated in JAIL, awaiting her trial, in much the same as I have heard of any other jail inmate in the same situation, in various jails across the nation.

[Amy]

I believe if she's receiving special treatment, it's in the form of an army of defense attorneys and "experts," by all accounts unpaid. Imo, that's very special treatment. However, it's not the fault of our justice system at this stage, but of our society as a whole, imo. Greed and a desire for fame has overcome us. It's an ugly thing to witness.

It makes me a bit uncomfortable to see a lot of discussion about how righteous it is to keep the accused murderer from harm, and to insure that come hell or high water, her rights are protected. For some reason, the vision of a 2 year-old child with duct tape over her nose and mouth is what I see as I read all the words in defense of the accused's rights.

After reading some of the posts here, I'd like to add a word or two for the murder victim, Casey's 2 year-old daughter.

In terms of our legal system, Casey is "innocent until proven guilty." That's not necessarily a true statement, just a legal one.

Regardless of what the jury decides, the 2 year-old will still be dead. The jury's decision doesn't change the truth. Casey might be acquitted, declared "innocent" of any crime against her daughter. Again ... that would be a legal decision, but not necessarily nor likely the truth. Just as innocents are convicted of crimes, so are guilty parties set free by our justice system.

I'd be much more inclined to vigorously defend the accused's rights while awaiting trial if our system of justice had not mutated from a search for the truth, to a competition to win freedom for the accused, regardless of the truth, and regardless of the cost.

That is not special treatment in any way. Now, if she declared indigency and she was allowed all these various lawyers and experts @ their going rate paid by the taxpayers--THAT would be special treatment. Any Tom, Dick or Harry who DOES NOT claim to be indigent can get any amount of lawyers and experts--and if he can pay them, so be it. If the "team" agrees to some sort of deal or to provide services pro-bono, that's their decision, and has nothing to do with special treatment by anyone. IMO

[Amy]

I know this was written on the 9th of this month but I just wondered if you think people will continue to send Casey money after having read the autopsy report or at least hearing about the duct tape and how it was wrapped and the layers of it, etc? If I had been sending her money....after reading the autopsy report she would never see another cent from me!

IMO, for the most part, the people who have been sending Casey Anthony money will continue to do so, even after she has been convicted of the murder of her daughter. Even after reading about, hearing and seeing (if it's televised) all the evidence the state has against her. There just are people who are for the underdog, some who will continue to say that Casey is innocent, etc etc etc. They will continue to send her money. IMO

[Details]

IMO, for the most part, the people who have been sending Casey Anthony money will continue to do so, even after she has been convicted of the murder of her daughter. Even after reading about, hearing and seeing (if it's televised) all the evidence the state has against her. There just are people who are for the underdog, some who will continue to say that Casey is innocent, etc etc etc. They will continue to send her money. IMOThere's fewer of those on this case than I've ever seen before - haven't seen one on these forums (usually there's at least a few), haven't seen anything in the media. No doubt there are a few - there always are.

[Amy]

There's fewer of those on this case than I've ever seen before - haven't seen one on these forums (usually there's at least a few), haven't seen anything in the media. No doubt there are a few - there always are.

I don't remember where to find it (but I'm betting NG does!!!:wink:) about the monies placed in Ms Anthony's commisary account. I don't know if there is a limit as to how much can be in that account @ any given time, and if all those (however many there may be) who wish to contribute just send the amount they want, or if they have to coordinate in some manner so there is only so much in the account. I haven't heard of all who contribute, but there was an article about some high school kid who donated his allowance or whatever it was. I can't remember his reasoning, but he felt compelled to help her out. :rolleyes:

[Imperfect4]

That is not special treatment in any way. Now, if she declared indigency and she was allowed all these various lawyers and experts @ their going rate paid by the taxpayers--THAT would be special treatment. Any Tom, Dick or Harry who DOES NOT claim to be indigent can get any amount of lawyers and experts--and if he can pay them, so be it. If the "team" agrees to some sort of deal or to provide services pro-bono, that's their decision, and has nothing to do with special treatment by anyone. IMO

It is not special treatment in your opinion. In mine, it certainly is. There appear to be many factors involved in why an unemployed, unaccomplished, still-living-with-mom-and-dad 23 year-old accused murdered is attracting such a "high profile" defense team. Casey's defense team doesn't show up, pro bono according to them, for just anyone. That's the definition of "special treatment." imo

[Imperfect4]

Maybe - before you set up your entire life and ethical system on this one story - you should research it a bit more? I went looking for it - I don't find it. I find page after page of stories like it - where the homeowner was considered entirely justified. Not one where they were not.
<snipped for space>


Maybe if you hadn't started with the bolded imperious-sounding statement, I'd attempt a serious response.

[Amy]

It is not special treatment in your opinion. In mine, it certainly is. There appear to be many factors involved in why an unemployed, unaccomplished, still-living-with-mom-and-dad 23 year-old accused murdered is attracting such a "high profile" defense team. Casey's defense team doesn't show up, pro bono according to them, for just anyone. That's the definition of "special treatment." imo

The only people showing SPECIAL TREATMENT would be HER LAWYERS. The courts have nothing to say about who defends her, unless she says she is indigent and requests public defenders. The courts have to allow whatever lawyers the defendant chooses to see her and proceed w/their defense. It would special treatment in reverse if she were denied having lawyers. EVERYONE gets to have lawyers--and Casey Anthony is no exception.

[Imperfect4]

The only people showing SPECIAL TREATMENT would be HER LAWYERS. The courts have nothing to say about who defends her, unless she says she is indigent and requests public defenders. The courts have to allow whatever lawyers the defendant chooses to see her and proceed w/their defense. It would special treatment in reverse if she were denied having lawyers. EVERYONE gets to have lawyers--and Casey Anthony is no exception.

And this is the entire original paragraph I wrote. You chose to address only the first sentence of it.

I believe if she's receiving special treatment, it's in the form of an army of defense attorneys and "experts," by all accounts unpaid. Imo, that's very special treatment. However, it's not the fault of our justice system at this stage, but of our society as a whole, imo. Greed and a desire for fame has overcome us. It's an ugly thing to witness.

[Details]

Maybe if you hadn't started with the bolded imperious-sounding statement, I'd attempt a serious response.That's always such a fun excuse to not read a serious post. If it doesn't matter to you how true or common your story is - not my problem.


To heck with justice, rights, I once heard a story where a good person got treated unjustly, might even be a true story, so now I figure everyone accused shouldn't be given any rights because I'm sure they are bad guys. Yeah, that works.

[Imperfect4]

That's always such a fun excuse to not read a serious post. If it doesn't matter to you how true or common your story is - not my problem.


To heck with justice, rights, I once heard a story where a good person got treated unjustly, might even be a true story, so now I figure everyone accused shouldn't be given any rights because I'm sure they are bad guys. Yeah, that works.

You might want to lower that pedestal, or get off it entirely.

Contrary to what you seem to believe, you're not the smartest kid on the block, nor are you in possession of all the right answers.

[Details]

I'm happy right where I am - willing to defend everyone's rights to a fair trial, and proper treatment in jail before they are found guilty, civilized treatment in prison after. No single story that may or may not be true, that may or may not be the whole story, nor my fantasies and imaginings after hearing such a story will change my mind about that.

[Imperfect4]

I'm happy right where I am - willing to defend everyone's rights to a fair trial, and proper treatment in jail before they are found guilty, civilized treatment in prison after. No single story that may or may not be true, that may or may not be the whole story, nor my fantasies and imaginings after hearing such a story will change my mind about that.

Too bad you can't give the same latitude to a fellow poster who recounts a personal reflection on a message board.

Your insulting and disrespectful dismissal of the sum of my 50+ years of life experience, told in a personal reflection of a story that *got me thinking* is uncalled for.

It's interesting to me how many fighters for the rights of the accused on this board are so dismissive of the sensibilities, opinions and life experiences of fellow posters.

How's the air up there?

[Details]

Too bad you can't give the same latitude to a fellow poster who recounts a personal reflection on a message board....What do you mean? I'd support your right to a fair trial, proper treatment in jail and prison - far more than Casey's.

I don't find anything to respect in fear tactics based on half stories and isolated incidents. If anything, that story should say a ton about the rights of the accused - in that case - the homeowner! Not that we should give fewer rights to the people accused of crimes, spend less time making sure they are kept safe while we decide if they are guilty of a crime or not.

There's plenty of thought given to the victim - not the least of it is to make sure that we TRULY respect the victim by making sure we punish the person who killed her - not anyone else - and that we have a clean trial so there is no chance of a valid appeal. For the victim, we lock up the defendant, force them to give bail or remain in jail, we hold a trial, and we possibly sentence someone to an entire lifetime in prison - or even death. The victim is all there.

But we do want to be sure that we don't disrespect the victim and sanction injustice by instead getting the wrong person, so yes, our court system has plenty of rights for the ACCUSED to try to prove themselves innocent.

I've lived plenty of time too - doesn't make my musings more or less valuable. But I'm not going to respect an idea that I see as part of a dangerous pattern towards what some states have - the idea that if we're sure enough the accused is guilty, so to heck with them, their rights, etc. That leads to a lot of innocent people in prison. And the people who put them there had no doubt the person they were locking up was guilty, so no need to worry about rights and fair trial - they were doing the right thing, right! Then - ooopsie - it wasn't the guilty party at all.




And the fact is - your story does not reflect reality. So all thoughts spawning from it - they're GIGO. People can defend themselves, even if the robber falls outside the window when shot. They have many times, in many places, without charges. The rights of the victim versus the rights of the accused is a continual balancing act - and to get the balance right, we have to remember both sides - the victim, as well as those who have been falsely accused.

[Imperfect4]

What do you mean? I'd support your right to a fair trial, proper treatment in jail and prison - far more than Casey's.

I don't find anything to respect in fear tactics based on half stories and isolated incidents. If anything, that story should say a ton about the rights of the accused - in that case - the homeowner! Not that we should give fewer rights to the people accused of crimes, spend less time making sure they are kept safe while we decide if they are guilty of a crime or not.

There's plenty of thought given to the victim - not the least of it is to make sure that we TRULY respect the victim by making sure we punish the person who killed her - not anyone else - and that we have a clean trial so there is no chance of a valid appeal. For the victim, we lock up the defendant, force them to give bail or remain in jail, we hold a trial, and we possibly sentence someone to an entire lifetime in prison - or even death. The victim is all there.

But we do want to be sure that we don't disrespect the victim and sanction injustice by instead getting the wrong person, so yes, our court system has plenty of rights for the ACCUSED to try to prove themselves innocent.

I've lived plenty of time too - doesn't make my musings more or less valuable. But I'm not going to respect an idea that I see as part of a dangerous pattern towards what some states have - the idea that if we're sure enough the accused is guilty, so to heck with them, their rights, etc. That leads to a lot of innocent people in prison. And the people who put them there had no doubt the person they were locking up was guilty, so no need to worry about rights and fair trial - they were doing the right thing, right! Then - ooopsie - it wasn't the guilty party at all.




And the fact is - your story does not reflect reality. So all thoughts spawning from it - they're GIGO. People can defend themselves, even if the robber falls outside the window when shot. They have many times, in many places, without charges. The rights of the victim versus the rights of the accused is a continual balancing act - and to get the balance right, we have to remember both sides - the victim, as well as those who have been falsely accused.

See, here's the thing with me. I'm happy to have a lively exchange of opinions and ideas.

I'm not willing to have that exchange with someone who starts every sentence with the equivalent of, "You're out of your mind."

Frankly, your attitude gets into the room at least five minutes before the rest of you. For example, the sentence I bolded, above.

I have no idea how you read a "fear tactic" into my post. I'm not into "fear tactics" on any level, quite the opposite. But you don't know me, so to label anything I said as a "fear tactic," means you've apparently stamped my forehead with some convenient stereotype based on your own belief system. I suspected as much.

Did the story I recounted, which you apparently think I made up out of whole cloth because YOU couldn't find it while Googling to find examples with which to dispute it, really sound embellished to the point of engendering fear? I think it's a rather mild story, actually.

And as noted above, it *got me thinking* -- it didn't make the earth move beneath my feet nor change the person I once was. It was a point of reference, albeit a significant one, for me.

I'm not inclined to discuss this any further with you.

Have a good one.

[Details]

To me - the idea that I'd be put in jail for defending my home from a robber - yeah, that's a scary thought to most I'd expect - so saying so is a fear tactic to me. Eek, our system is so out of whack that the robber, the criminal, has more rights than me!

Your story sounds false - exaggerated or with part of the story missing - so I went looking for it. Such an outrageous occurrence would normally be something easy to find - you'd find a ton of bloggers mentioning it - and since I do value discussions and new perspectives - rather than dismiss it - I spent more time than I should have looking for it - I Googled to find your story - not to find examples to the opposite. All I found was the opposite - homeowners shooting robbers - even before they get into the house - and it's found justified.

I'm seeing people suggesting that a suspect's rights don't matter - and you quote that to say why it should be OK to have fewer rights for 'them'. Whether or not that story is typical - or even merely true - is indeed a key question into whether or not there is a problem with the rights the accused has.

[CelticDawn]

See, here's the thing with me. I'm happy to have a lively exchange of opinions and ideas.

I'm not willing to have that exchange with someone who starts every sentence with the equivalent of, "You're out of your mind."

Frankly, your attitude gets into the room at least five minutes before the rest of you. For example, the sentence I bolded, above.

I have no idea how you read a "fear tactic" into my post. I'm not into "fear tactics" on any level, quite the opposite. But you don't know me, so to label anything I said as a "fear tactic," means you've apparently stamped my forehead with some convenient stereotype based on your own belief system. I suspected as much.

Did the story I recounted, which you apparently think I made up out of whole cloth because YOU couldn't find it while Googling to find examples with which to dispute it, really sound embellished to the point of engendering fear? I think it's a rather mild story, actually.

And as noted above, it *got me thinking* -- it didn't make the earth move beneath my feet nor change the person I once was. It was a point of reference, albeit a significant one, for me.

I'm not inclined to discuss this any further with you.

Have a good one.

even though we have practically everything on the internet these days EVERYTHING WILL NOT BE FOUND VIA GOOGLE....I personally know this because I have been googled, zabasearched, etc by busybodies looking to cause me trouble......

so folks, just because something isnt immediately found doesnt mean its untrue....


and yall, Im not siding with either of you.....just pointing this out from personal experience
and not every story makes the news either.....as shocking as that may seem

[Details]

even though we have practically everything on the internet these days EVERYTHING WILL NOT BE FOUND VIA GOOGLE....I personally know this because I have been googled, zabasearched, etc by busybodies looking to cause me trouble......

so folks, just because something isnt immediately found doesnt mean its untrue....


and yall, Im not siding with either of you.....just pointing this out from personal experience
and not every story makes the news either.....as shocking as that may seemI know. But stories that are shocking - as that one would be - tend to be quoted and repeated and passed along to many different blogs, causing many more hits (I got a ton, for instance, on the charge against the man who shot and killed a robber breaking into his neighbors house). This one in particular fits a meme that is popular among many blogs - the concept that criminals have all the rights, and us civilized people have to fight the justice system to keep ours - I'd really expect to find it fairly widespread.

If it were anything that happened even occasionally, I'd have found similar stories mixed in with the stories I did find of shootings that were considered justified.

I didn't find anything like it - and that's the real point I'm looking at - this is nothing even remotely common - if it happened - and it could well have - it was a random single case - an outlier - not representative of what normally happens in our justice system, not a reason to believe that our entire system is corrupt and excessively weighted to the criminal - not when it is so far from the norm that I couldn't find one single case.

[Details]

Absolutely, 10000000% - everyone is free to say what they think of Casey, their own personal opinions and beliefs, and the case.

I think, personally, she's the worst type of murderer - someone who kills their own child because the child is inconvenient and/or as a method to get back at someone else. We'll find out what the jury thinks, after some time - but that's my opinion. And I don't think she's got the slightest chance of getting off to any degree in court. There's no story she can present to a jury that fits the facts that will come out in court about her actions before and after Caylee 'disappeared'.

I'm not always that sure about all cases - and some of the ones that I've been unsure about, and others have been positive about, and ready to forget the trial, let someone in jail get our revenge for us - those have turned out to be one where the suspect was actually innocent. Most of the time, the police have the right person - but mistakes do happen.

[anon-o-miss]

I know. But stories that are shocking - as that one would be - tend to be quoted and repeated and passed along to many different blogs, causing many more hits (I got a ton, for instance, on the charge against the man who shot and killed a robber breaking into his neighbors house). This one in particular fits a meme that is popular among many blogs - the concept that criminals have all the rights, and us civilized people have to fight the justice system to keep ours - I'd really expect to find it fairly widespread.

If it were anything that happened even occasionally, I'd have found similar stories mixed in with the stories I did find of shootings that were considered justified.

I didn't find anything like it - and that's the real point I'm looking at - this is nothing even remotely common - if it happened - and it could well have - it was a random single case - an outlier - not representative of what normally happens in our justice system, not a reason to believe that our entire system is corrupt and excessively weighted to the criminal - not when it is so far from the norm that I couldn't find one single case.
I found a few where the homeowner was arrested after shooting an intruder, some for drugs, and one for owning a handgun( handguns were banned in this town.) http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1520759.html Not necessarily what was being referred to I'm just making the point that those stories are there no matter how relevant. That being said, everyone on here has a right to their opinions. To single out a poster, just because you couldn't find their story doesn't make it untrue. I just took it that imperfect was making a personal observation based on something he/she had read or heard. I think you both made some valid points. Justice is not alway had by all, I think we can ALL agree on that. The only way to change things or make them better is to have intelligent debates, but there is a difference between having an intelligent debate and attacking others opinions. This is simply my opinion for what it's worth.
As for this case, I think Casey is getting special treatment by her "dream team" because of the notoriety of the case, I don't think that any other unemployed mother that is accused of murdering her child in the OC jail has their own dream team working for free in the pursuit of the defendant getting a fair trial. I could be wrong, but that is jmo. I also feel she is getting special treatment in a way, if it wasn't for the media coverage she wouldn't have all these kind hearted souls ( or as I call them dupes) putting money on her books from all over the country. However, I think G,C, & L, are the ones getting special treatment. They have blatantly obstructed justice and have no qualms about, yet because of their loss they are not being charged with anything and are being treated with kid gloves. Perhaps it's because they are needed for the states case, which is understandable I suppose, but it is bothersome nonetheless.

[Details]

I did find the handgun case - that's the closest thing I could find - but I only found the homeowner's site on that, and without more, I'm not sure why he couldn't have a handgun, because there's nowhere I'm aware of where it's illegal to own a handgun, thus I'm thinking it might be that he's a criminal and thus unable to own guns. I pretty much ignored the ones where they were charged for other causes - like drugs - didn't seem really relevant to the point of homeowners being given less rights than criminals, when the homeowner is also a criminal.

I'd think "getting special treatment" would apply to what the state is doing. Lawyers, members of the public - they'll do what they like. But the references to them having her isolated in jail for her safety, why isn't she being forced to work, never mind her rights, why should she be treated as a human being, "I'm sick of hearing about the rights of the accused", suggestions that somehow those speaking out for normal rights for Casey like anyone else are trying to get others "... to stay up nights worrying about her accused murderer's protection and rights." - that's what has been on the thread.

She's being treated the same as any other accused murderer who is sufficiently high profile to be at risk in jail.

[Katprint]

I did find the handgun case - that's the closest thing I could find - but I only found the homeowner's site on that, and without more, I'm not sure why he couldn't have a handgun, because there's nowhere I'm aware of where it's illegal to own a handgun, thus I'm thinking it might be that he's a criminal and thus unable to own guns. I pretty much ignored the ones where they were charged for other causes - like drugs - didn't seem really relevant to the point of homeowners being given less rights than criminals, when the homeowner is also a criminal.

I'd think "getting special treatment" would apply to what the state is doing. Lawyers, members of the public - they'll do what they like. But the references to them having her isolated in jail for her safety, why isn't she being forced to work, never mind her rights, why should she be treated as a human being, "I'm sick of hearing about the rights of the accused", suggestions that somehow those speaking out for normal rights for Casey like anyone else are trying to get others "... to stay up nights worrying about her accused murderer's protection and rights." - that's what has been on the thread.

She's being treated the same as any other accused murderer who is sufficiently high profile to be at risk in jail.
You are absolutely right. Pretty much the same thing we saw with OJ Simpson and Scott Peterson, both of whom were similarly isolated from the general population while in pretrial custody awaiting their murder trials.

P.S. Regarding homeowner's use of deadly force: The laws vary from state to state concerning whether you have a "duty to retreat" from an intruder invading your home before you are entitled to use deadly force to defend yourself and your family, although "duty to retreat" laws have generally fallen into disfavor as home invasion robberies/rapes/murders have increased.

If you are justified in shooting the intruder, it doesn't matter which way the body falls. http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/2005_05_01_archive.html is fairly typical: "When the burglar, who had a flashlight, entered the room, Kuntz fired one round from her .38-caliber handgun. (¶) Hit squarely in the chest, the unidentified intruder ran outside, where he collapsed and died. ... The Brevard County Sheriff's Office said she was justified in defending herself and will not face charges."

Also, as has been mentioned above, you are NEVER justified in using deadly force to defend your property i.e. to stop a thief from stealing your car (or credit cards, or gas cans, or shovel...)

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

[Imperfect4]

You are absolutely right. Pretty much the same thing we saw with OJ Simpson and Scott Peterson, both of whom were similarly isolated from the general population while in pretrial custody awaiting their murder trials.

P.S. Regarding homeowner's use of deadly force: The laws vary from state to state concerning whether you have a "duty to retreat" from an intruder invading your home before you are entitled to use deadly force to defend yourself and your family, although "duty to retreat" laws have generally fallen into disfavor as home invasion robberies/rapes/murders have increased.

If you are justified in shooting the intruder, it doesn't matter which way the body falls. http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/2005_05_01_archive.html is fairly typical: "When the burglar, who had a flashlight, entered the room, Kuntz fired one round from her .38-caliber handgun. (¶) Hit squarely in the chest, the unidentified intruder ran outside, where he collapsed and died. ... The Brevard County Sheriff's Office said she was justified in defending herself and will not face charges."

Also, as has been mentioned above, you are NEVER justified in using deadly force to defend your property i.e. to stop a thief from stealing your car (or credit cards, or gas cans, or shovel...)

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

Kat,

Couple questions when you swing back by ...

The "duty to retreat" thing before using deadly force sounds squirrely. I wonder how it could be disproved if you claimed to have retreated before shooting an intruder dead? Would he have to fall, say, right outside the closet door in which you tried to hide?

Regarding your last paragraph, I'm not sure why the onus would be on a homeowner or car owner to try to decide whether an intruder is just there to thieve, or whether he might also do bodily harm. If I wake up in the middle of the night and someone's in my home who shouldn't be, I might not have the presence of mind to hang out observing him until I can figure out how dangerous he is.

I don't understand how it is that an intruder in my home, if he's there for the "right" reasons, has a right not to get shot. He's in my home with criminal intent. Any intruder in my home is a threat to me, regardless of why he's there. Seems very lopsided to me that he breaks in and the onus is on me to figure out the right thing to do, while scared out of my mind.

[Katprint]

Kat,

Couple questions when you swing back by ...

The "duty to retreat" thing before using deadly force sounds squirrely. I wonder how it could be disproved if you claimed to have retreated before shooting an intruder dead? Would he have to fall, say, right outside the closet door in which you tried to hide?

Regarding your last paragraph, I'm not sure why the onus would be on a homeowner or car owner to try to decide whether an intruder is just there to thieve, or whether he might also do bodily harm. If I wake up in the middle of the night and someone's in my home who shouldn't be, I might not have the presence of mind to hang out observing him until I can figure out how dangerous he is.

I don't understand how it is that an intruder in my home, if he's there for the "right" reasons, has a right not to get shot. He's in my home with criminal intent. Any intruder in my home is a threat to me, regardless of why he's there. Seems very lopsided to me that he breaks in and the onus is on me to figure out the right thing to do, while scared out of my mind.
Some of the "duty to retreat" cases involved the homeowner shooting someone that was outside of their home but that the homeowner was afraid would try to break in. Some other cases involved an intruder who had gotten past the exterior garage door and was trying to get in through the home's interior garage door and the homeowner could easily have exited through the front door or the back door - or called the police - but instead decided to "stand their ground" and shoot the intruder as soon as the intruder opened the door. FWIW, the location of a gunshot victim's body at the time of the gunshot is generally not a big mystery because there tends to be splatter from the bullet impact even if the victim survives a few seconds and runs away or is moved somewhere else by the shooter.

Also, there have been many cases where someone wakes up inside their house, hears a noise outside their house and looks out the window to see a car thief trying to steal their car. They go outside with a gun and shoot the car thief to death, thus committing voluntary manslaughter or second degree murder. From time to time people have set traps (rigged shotguns/crossbows, bear traps, electrical shock, etc.) in uninhabited outbuildings like tool sheds, barns, etc. to prevent people from stealing their belongings. This is simply not permitted by law.

By way of example, if George woke up and saw Casey outside in their backyard trying to pry open his shed to steal his gas cans, George could not shoot her to prevent a theft from the shed. However, if Cindy woke up and saw the imagi-nanny wandering through their house, Cindy could grab up her trusty Hammer and hammer her with impunity.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

[Imperfect4]

Some of the "duty to retreat" cases involved the homeowner shooting someone that was outside of their home but that the homeowner was afraid would try to break in. Some other cases involved an intruder who had gotten past the exterior garage door and was trying to get in through the home's interior garage door and the homeowner could easily have exited through the front door or the back door - or called the police - but instead decided to "stand their ground" and shoot the intruder as soon as the intruder opened the door. FWIW, the location of a gunshot victim's body at the time of the gunshot is generally not a big mystery because there tends to be splatter from the bullet impact even if the victim survives a few seconds and runs away or is moved somewhere else by the shooter.

Also, there have been many cases where someone wakes up inside their house, hears a noise outside their house and looks out the window to see a car thief trying to steal their car. They go outside with a gun and shoot the car thief to death, thus committing voluntary manslaughter or second degree murder. From time to time people have set traps (rigged shotguns/crossbows, bear traps, electrical shock, etc.) in uninhabited outbuildings like tool sheds, barns, etc. to prevent people from stealing their belongings. This is simply not permitted by law.

By way of example, if George woke up and saw Casey outside in their backyard trying to pry open his shed to steal his gas cans, George could not shoot her to prevent a theft from the shed. However, if Cindy woke up and saw the imagi-nanny wandering through their house, Cindy could grab up her trusty Hammer and hammer her with impunity.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

Cindy gets all the breaks. :sneaky:

LE couldn't even investigate. How much mess does an invisible nanny with her head hammered in make?

[Details]

Cindy gets all the breaks. :sneaky:

LE couldn't even investigate. How much mess does an invisible nanny with her head hammered in make?It makes a huge mess - but it's all invisible, so you cannot prove it's not there. :wink:

[Imperfect4]

It makes a huge mess - but it's all invisible, so you cannot prove it's not there. :wink:

Ack. I can hear Cindy saying those very words. :blink:

[anon-o-miss]

I did find the handgun case - that's the closest thing I could find - but I only found the homeowner's site on that, and without more, I'm not sure why he couldn't have a handgun, because there's nowhere I'm aware of where it's illegal to own a handgun, thus I'm thinking it might be that he's a criminal and thus unable to own guns. I pretty much ignored the ones where they were charged for other causes - like drugs - didn't seem really relevant to the point of homeowners being given less rights than criminals, when the homeowner is also a criminal.

I'd think "getting special treatment" would apply to what the state is doing. Lawyers, members of the public - they'll do what they like. But the references to them having her isolated in jail for her safety, why isn't she being forced to work, never mind her rights, why should she be treated as a human being, "I'm sick of hearing about the rights of the accused", suggestions that somehow those speaking out for normal rights for Casey like anyone else are trying to get others "... to stay up nights worrying about her accused murderer's protection and rights." - that's what has been on the thread.

She's being treated the same as any other accused murderer who is sufficiently high profile to be at risk in jail.
(Bolding mine)
Wilmette Police Chief George Carpenter defended his decision to enforce the village's handgun ban, which took effect in 1989.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1520759.html
See just because it's not something you've heard of doesn't make it any less true. Thanks for helping me make my point lol. As for the "special treatment" the title of the thread is do you think Casey Anthony is getting special treatment. Not is Casey Anthony getting special treatment from the state. Just because that's the way you understood it doesn't mean everyone looked at it the same way. My quote said nothing about the State giving her special treatment.

[Imperfect4]

(Bolding mine)
Wilmette Police Chief George Carpenter defended his decision to enforce the village's handgun ban, which took effect in 1989.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1520759.html
See just because it's not something you've heard of doesn't make it any less true. Thanks for helping me make my point lol. As for the "special treatment" the title of the thread is do you think Casey Anthony is getting special treatment. Not is Casey Anthony getting special treatment from the state. Just because that's the way you understood it doesn't mean everyone looked at it the same way. My quote said nothing about the State giving her special treatment.

As I said upthread, I don't think the state of Florida is giving her special treatment. I just don't happen to believe if she was your run of the mill accused murderer without a penny to her name, she'd have the defense team she does. I don't know how else to describe the phenomenon other than "special treatment." She's not the first. She won't be the last.

Casey Anthony is special. Just ask her. :laugh: