Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Casey Anthony's Legal Team: We're Taking on the Judge She Should NOT Be On Probation
TMZ ^ | 08-15-11 | TMZ staff

Posted on 08/15/2011 9:35:22 PM PDT by Kevin in California

Casey Anthony's legal team tells TMZ they will fight the judge who just rejected their claim that Casey served her probation for check fraud while she sat in jail during her murder trial ... and if they lose Casey will have to return to Florida in 11 days.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-62 last
To: Protect the Bill of Rights

So sorry I clicked on the photos to see those two livin’ it up. Cindy should be sitting in jail for perjury and yet there she is: abusing a dolphin by kissing it. Poor, poor dolphin.

I still feel at the bottom of this ugly story is the twisted Cindy.


51 posted on 08/16/2011 8:33:22 PM PDT by miss marmelstein (Run, Sarah, Run! Please!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein

I agree. Probabtion instead of a death penalty like she deseves is a piece of cake. She is just afraid someone might locate her and duct tape hr face ( which IMHO she also deserves)


52 posted on 08/16/2011 11:39:56 PM PDT by paul revere is riding (I'm really a Paula.....Go Cain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Protect the Bill of Rights

” I think the prosecution could have done a better job of presenting the evidence.”

Did you watch the trial from start to finish? I don’t think so, and if you didn’t then your comments, like other shoot from the hip know nothings: Hannity, Levin, Whorealdo etc., are an undeserved insult to a very hard working da team. Overwhelming evidence of guilt.


53 posted on 08/17/2011 4:01:04 AM PDT by at bay ("We were all in agreeance of that."--slutmom jury foreman, Larry Mokirlyjo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein

“To: Protect the Bill of Rights
The so-called “junk science” was never used by the prosecution. It was brought in by the greasy defense attorney and his hillbilly partner during the summation.”

Jurors sittin thinkin bout anythin cept the case right there
Drinkin Kool Aid from a Mason jar
Chug a lug chug a lug

Makes ya wanna shake these fools
Go an talk to their old teachers at their schools
For drinkin Kool Aid from a Mason jar
Chug a lug chug a lug


54 posted on 08/17/2011 4:09:34 AM PDT by at bay ("We were all in agreeance of that."--slutmom jury foreman, Larry Mokirlyjo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: freejohn
There are more important things .. That affect US ALL right now and Casey Anthony isn’t one of them!

Some really bad precedents are being set by this verdict. If you think prosecutors around the country weren’t paying attention to this case you are wrong. At this point if there is no DNA then the jury trial will have a high probability of failure. We live in a dangerous dumbed down era.

55 posted on 08/17/2011 4:18:49 AM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: at bay
Oh puh-leeze....

Shoot from the hip know nothing?? You read my comments on the live threads before you called ME a shoot from the hip know nothing (ie stoooopid)??? I doubt it.

I would say pot meet kettle, but I went back and reread my comments. I stand by them.

Blaming it all on an ignorant, “waiting for payday” jury while calling those who disagree stupid is about as narrow minded as one can be.

It was a combination of factors. I did not like the verdict. I do not want it happen again. I would rather look at what could have been done differently than to simply dump the blame in the laps of the jury. But that's just stooooopid me.

56 posted on 08/17/2011 5:38:19 AM PDT by Protect the Bill of Rights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein

FOX reports Dr. Phil has scored the first interview with Cindy and George. Money is involved in some way, but not to Cindy and George. It is to go a foundation. (wink wink nod nod).

Cindy is a ball buster. An interview LE had with George was very telling. He talks about how “strong” Cindy is and how people think he is henpecked. He goes on to say he likes strong women and would not have it any other way (paraphrased).

He says in one of his letters to Casey that he wanted “both of my strong women” home.

I have no sympathy/empathy for any of them.


57 posted on 08/17/2011 6:42:05 AM PDT by Protect the Bill of Rights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Protect the Bill of Rights

They are a classic - and I mean Freudian CLASSIC - sado- masochistic couple. (In other words, she’s a ballbuster and he gets his jollies getting kicked around.)

I don’t know why Cindy creeps me out as much as she does. I don’t think she was in any way involved with the little girl’s death but I think she knows a lot more than she’s telling. George is just not very bright.

And do they EVER get tired of the limelight? I don’t remember OJ’s family hogging the spotlight like these two.


58 posted on 08/17/2011 7:45:12 AM PDT by miss marmelstein (Run, Sarah, Run! Please!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Protect the Bill of Rights

“But that’s just stooooopid me. “

The question was simple: Did you watch the WHOLE trial?
The non-response means that you did not.

“I do not want it happen again.” None of us “want it happen again.”

Part of what I don’t “want it happen again” is for observers that did not watch the whole trial to shoot from the hip regarding the strength of the evidence.


59 posted on 08/17/2011 8:42:38 AM PDT by at bay ("We were all in agreeance of that."--slutmom jury foreman, Larry Mokirlyjo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: at bay
The question was simple: Did you watch the WHOLE trial? The non-response means that you did not.

Why should I answer? I am a know nothing. :) Yes I watched the trial. Not every second or minute, mind you. Real life tends to get in the way at times. I managed to catch up on what I missed.

Part of what I don’t “want it happen again” is for observers that did not watch the whole trial to shoot from the hip regarding the strength of the evidence.

Say that the next time someone such as Casey Anthony walks away as free as a bird. I am not questioning the strength of the evidence. It could have been presented differently. Would it have changed the verdict? Don't know.

60 posted on 08/17/2011 9:28:13 AM PDT by Protect the Bill of Rights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Protect the Bill of Rights; at bay; All
Unfortunately, you never know with these jurors. I remember after the O.J. trial when Chris Darden (prosecutor) was asked "When did you know you lost the case?" he replied, "The first time I saw the jury."

From his book, "In Contempt:"

THE CASE HAD ALREADY BEEN MOVING ALONG slowly, toward trial, without me, and by the time I joined the prosecution, the first twelve jurors had already been selected. While I was assessing the strength of the case, I also decided to take a look at the jury. We were still choosing the alternates, but as soon as I saw the first-teamers, I could tell it was one of the worst juries--from a prosecutor's standpoint--that I'd ever seen. And I'm not talking about race. These were simply not happy-looking, motivated, or successful people. From the first day, I sensed that many of them were angry at the system for various insults and injuries--twelve people lined up at the grinder with big axes.

"They were the best of the lot," Bill said, rubbing his close-cropped beard. "If you think they're bad, you ought to see the ones who were coming up."

61 posted on 08/17/2011 1:15:10 PM PDT by truthkeeper (Vote Against Barack Obama in 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: truthkeeper

“Jury of peers” ought to actually mean something, rather than trial by jury. Unfortunately, there are probably no interests who would support a rule such as a basic logic and reasoning test, and plenty of money with the trial lawyers association that would oppose it. They live to get stubborn morons on their juries.


62 posted on 08/17/2011 4:30:48 PM PDT by at bay ("We were all in agreeance of that."--slutmom jury foreman, Larry Mokirlyjo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-62 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson