Originally Posted By mele Wow. Just...wow. <a href="http://jezebel.com/5819064/there-are-plenty-of-casey-anthony-crafts-for-sale-on-etsy/gallery/1" target="_blank">http://jezebel.com/5819064/the...allery/1</a>
Originally Posted By DyGDisney People making money off this is disgusting. Most disgusting is that Casey Anthony is sure to make money off of it, considering she already has book offers. If she is TRULY innocent, she should turn down any and all offers. Her child is dead and to profit off of that is the lowest of the low.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder If she's truly innocent, why would it be the lowest of the low? She's lost three years of her life to prison. Why shouldn't she be compensated, if truly innocent?
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf And yet how many hundreds of thousands of people would buy her book? If she is the lowest of the low, how would you describe all those people that would pay money to know more about her?
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I'd go so far as to way that if you buy a book written by her you are somewhere between her and her counsel on the Pathetic Meter.
Originally Posted By ecdc It's getting disturbing how much people are more invested in their own anger and outrage than in understanding how our legal system works. Her counsel is not "pathetic." He did what he's supposed to - represent his client and create reasonable doubt. He may believe his client to be innocent, why is that "pathetic?"
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I'd say the entire "her father molested her when she was a kid" diatribe during opening statements that was never followed up with any type of susbtance lands him in the pathetic category. I understand the law. I understand it is his job to raise reasonable doubt. But, I think ethics should play SOME role in the law...even on the Defense side of the room. Frankly, I think they had reasonable doubt without any of that nonsense. It wasn't a strong case and I'm not surprised at all that she was found not guilty.
Originally Posted By mele Don't forget that the attorney also accused Casey's brother of abuse (and possibly fathering her child.) Pretty pathetic in my book. He's the reason why people hate attorneys. I do think it would be interesting if states adopted a "Caylee's Law" making it illegal to not report your child's death or disappearance within a 24/48 hour period. It's sad that there needs to be a law for something like that... But, then again, as a parent of a child who used to run away, our local laws subjected me to the threat of being jailed/fined for him not going to school. (Becca Bill). I was told by police that I HAD to report him as a runaway and repeatedly harassed by one particularly heinous police officer for reporting him. I can see how something like this could be used against parents who haven't done anything wrong, too. But, even after experiencing that...I do think each state needs to consider having a law about reporting disappearance/death of your children.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I can't be open minded about a woman who doesn't report her daughter "missing" for a month. My 8 year old son was asking about the case because it was all over the news. I tried to explain to him that she may not have been found guilty of killing her daughter but that doesn't mean she didn't do it and it most certainly doesn't mean she isn't an absolutely disgraceful parent. If my child were missing I would be calling the cops in mininutes, not weeks. If my child were missing I would not be at the bars partying it up. If my child were missing I wouldn't have the time nor the inclination to have "beautiful life" tatooed on my body. And, I don't know any decent parent who would disagree with me.
Originally Posted By ecdc This may come as a shock after debating topics like religion and politics, but sometimes people believe things that aren't true. They get in an insulated cocoon, and they swallow nonsense. That may include abuse allegations. Questioning her lawyers motives without a knowledge of what he's thinking is not the best idea. Everyone is approaching this with a very specific perspective and they're getting outraged that others, including her attorney, doesn't just see how obvious it all is. And perhaps I'm mistaken, but if her story is her daughter drowned and she panicked and buried the body, isn't that why she wouldn't report her missing? (I find this explanation to be...unlikely...but again, it may make sense to someone close to her, like an attorney.)
Originally Posted By mele And, if she did that, we can't be morally disgusted by what she did? That's nonsense. Where do we draw the line between basing laws on what we find right or wrong, especially when children are involved? And, frankly, people who are outraged about the verdict aren't the only ones who are unwilling to see the opposite side of things. The other side is just as guilty as is clearly shown in this thread. It's funny to be called out for this when it's clearly not one-sided.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>And, if she did that, we can't be morally disgusted by what she did? That's nonsense.<< Again, you're responding to something no one said. Be morally disgusted all you like; I'm certainly not a fan of the woman's, regardless. The issue isn't one of moral disgust or whether Casey Anthony is guilty, the issue is believing one's moral disgust is somehow the legal system's responsibility to satisfy. Casey Anthony can be guilty as sin and an all around despicable human being; that does not equate to the legal system failed, her attorney's pathetic, etc. The legal system can and has failed, but it didn't in this case, and the fact that it's emotionally charged doesn't change that. As for the "other side" is doing it, there's no other side here. Unless you can tell me what I'm somehow blind to or what I'm missing. I see a lot of people understandably frustrated and disgusted, but I also see these natural emotional responses skewing their understanding or perspective on the legal system and the possible motives of her attorneys.
Originally Posted By hopemax Well, assuming that the defense attorney isn't pathetic does come across as a bit blind. The story of this trial, prior to the verdict was how incompetent her lawyer was. He opened to door for the state to enter evidence that the defense did NOT want the jury to hear (not that it mattered in the end). And there were many other instances where it was obvious that he was so far over his head, that people were wondering if the basis of appeal would be incompetent counsel. Even after the verdict was read, there are some typical requests defense attorneys ask for when their client has been found not guilty, and he didn't make them. Just because he won, didn't mean he wasn't a mess.
Originally Posted By mele Well, let's see, I've posted my feelings about what Casey was *convicted* of doing and discussed the validity of a new law for the future and told I needed to have an open mind. I haven't been railing against the legal system (and neither has wahoo), just our disgust at what happened, and we're called closed minded, emotional and that we don't understand the system. Perhaps you and SPP are just speaking in generalities and about society at large, and not about the people who are contributing to this thread. I wouldn't really know because the statements are directly after other posts. (And the things we said in our posts were totally ignored...or were they?) The past couple of pages have been more about the disgust at the people involved (and the possibilities of them profiting) and less about the system, so continually bringing it up when we're talking about the issues of morality of profiting from this...and then we're told that we're overly emotional and need to have open minds. Timing is everything...speaking in specifics is good.
Originally Posted By mele Wasn't there a law (maybe it was only specific states?) where it was illegal for a person to profit from their crimes by writing about them? I think it might have been deemed unconstitutional? I am not saying she shouldn't be allowed to profit...just that it's disgustingly amoral for her to do so. I also think that people are disgusted by the joy and party atmosphere of the attorney and people involved with the defense when, at the heart of it all, a child is dead. (Also, seeing him flipping off the media isn't endearing at all.) There doesn't seem to be any respect for Caylee and that is only adding fuel to the fire. I hold the media to blame for a lot of this. I don't follow cases anymore. Sometimes a trial might get my interest (this one didn't until it was in the jury's hands). I also think that tv and movies have made people expect a confession, crystal clear video of the event or undeniable "smoking gun" evidence and, if they don't get those things, are not willing to exercise common sense. I don't think we know what "reasonable doubt" really means anymore. That's where I think the system is flawed but it's really a flaw in human nature.
Originally Posted By mele Also, another question because I honestly do not know (and it may vary state to state)...are there any restrictions or ramifications for defense attorney's accusations during a trial? Can they accuse anyone of anything to create reasonable doubt? Are there guidelines for this? Has any attorney been sued after a trial for what he/she may have said in court? Are they responsible for what they state after the trial when it comes to accusing people of crimes and offering no evidence? Does that only happen if there's a gag order during the case?
