• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Casey Anthony Reveals New Theory for Caylee's Death

Status
Not open for further replies.
Napoleonthechimp said:
How this case has been presented has shaped the minds of people who hear about it. It is the mob mentality that chills my soul, not the sociopathic actions of one individual.
Click to expand...

What mob mentality!? I just presented gobs of evidence over a case you claimed to know nothing about, as have other people, showing a clear line of reasoning for those of us who simply want to see her in prison for her crime. But now you're judging that the media helped shape the case a certain way (a case which you claimed to know nothing about), causing mob rule over the result?

I mean, can you be more transparent here?

Napoleonthechimp said:
If the mass public can be convinced that she is absolutely guilty then I bet you they can be convinced that she is guilty enough to be hunted down and killed... that is disturbing to me.
Click to expand...

I'm sure there are some people out there who are insane enough to want her hunted down and killed, but there is no mob calling for such an action. We just want to see justice served, life in prison.
 
Amir0x said:
What mob mentality!? I just presented gobs of evidence over a case you claimed to know nothing about, as have other people, showing a clear line of reasoning for those of us who simply want to see her in prison for her crime. But now you're judging that the media helped shape the case a certain way (a case which you claimed to know nothing about), causing mob rule over the result?

I mean, can you be more transparent here?
Click to expand...
People are murdered all the time. It is not pleasant and I naturally do not support such actions, but what makes this particular case so special? Why should I be enraged? Because a child was murdered and someone got away with it?

The image of the world people have must be wonderful if this one case enrages them.
 
Napoleonthechimp said:
How this case has been presented has shaped the minds of people who hear about it. It is the mob mentality that chills my soul, not the sociopathic actions of one individual. If the mass public can be convinced that she is absolutely guilty then I bet you they can be convinced that she is guilty enough to be hunted down and killed... that is disturbing to me.
Click to expand...

So why did you dishonestly say you knew nothing about the case when you'd already decided what it was about and everyone just thinks she's guilty because of "mob mentality"?
 
Napoleonthechimp said:
People are murdered all the time. It is not pleasant and I naturally do not support such actions, but what makes this particular case so special? Why should I be enraged? Because a child was murdered and someone got away with it?

The image of the world people have must be wonderful if this one case enrages them.
Click to expand...

really? REALLY?
 
Napoleonthechimp said:
People are murdered all the time. It is not pleasant and I naturally do not support such actions, but what makes this particular case so special? Why should I be enraged? Because a child was murdered and someone got away with it?

The image of the world people have must be wonderful if this one case enrages them.
Click to expand...

Man

Is something wrong with you
 
Napoleonthechimp said:
People are murdered all the time. It is not pleasant and I naturally do not support such actions, but what makes this particular case so special? Why should I be enraged? Because a child was murdered and someone got away with it?
The image of the world people have must be wonderful if this one case enrages them.
Click to expand...

There's always one in threads like this.
 
I love how any time this subject comes up the only arguments available to the defenders are:

1) Nancy Grace is crrrrraazzzy! You guys are crazy!

and

2) The verdict was NOT GUILTY, get a brain morans

Would anybody care to refute the actual evidence to explain why they feel any further discussion of this topic is either unwarranted or unfair to Ms. Anthony?

Murder happens. You are right in that, napoleon. But it's asinine to suggest that because you can't be expected to care about this case, others should share your mentality, as the only alternative is the mob. That is completely irrational.
 
Napoleonthechimp said:
People are murdered all the time. It is not pleasant and I naturally do not support such actions, but what makes this particular case so special? Why should I be enraged? Because a child was murdered and someone got away with it?

The image of the world people have must be wonderful if this one case enrages them.
Click to expand...

There is nothing that makes this case special. It is just one I happen to know a lot about that makes me personally passionate because I can relate. Nobody has time to follow every single case on Earth, so I follow the ones which I have the ability to watch the court proceedings all the way through. This case was televised in its entirety on tv and online (Read: not media pundits; the ACTUAL court proceedings), so I was able to watch the case and come to my own conclusions.

What makes this case offensive is that she is guilty and she got away with killing her daughter. There are other cases like that and I would be offended at any of them. This is just the one I was able to watch all the way through.

And it's relevant to this topic because here she is making outrageous comments again. If you're not at all interested in this case, and you claim to know nothing about it, one begins to wonder why you're even here. I suspect you haven't thought this all the way through.
 
Napoleonthechimp said:
How this case has been presented has shaped the minds of people who hear about it. It is the mob mentality that chills my soul, not the sociopathic actions of one individual. If the mass public can be convinced that she is absolutely guilty then I bet you they can be convinced that she is guilty enough to be hunted down and killed... that is disturbing to me.
Click to expand...

Nobody has a gun to her head, forcing her to give interviews to get more cash. Nobody is stopping her from changing her name and staying out of the limelight.

Napoleonthechimp said:
People are murdered all the time. It is not pleasant and I naturally do not support such actions, but what makes this particular case so special? Why should I be enraged? Because a child was murdered and someone got away with it?

The image of the world people have must be wonderful if this one case enrages them.
Click to expand...

lol
 
I like how no one posted the part about the deposition that clearly state the psychiatrist didn't think she was "crazy" or had any sort of disorder. I guess that would shake your opinions too much.


Psychiatrist: Casey Anthony had no mental illness ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) —

A psychiatrist says in newly released depositions that he could find no evidence that Casey Anthony has a mental illness.
Jeff Danziger says the results of a psychological test that Anthony took were normal and that he regarded that as surprising.
The depositions of two psychiatrists who evaluated Anthony were unsealed Wednesday by a Florida judge.
Casey Anthony is serving a year of probation at an undisclosed location in Florida on a check fraud charge. The 25-year-old was acquitted last July of killing her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee, in a trial that captured the nation's attention.
Transcripts of the deposition had been sealed. But the Orlan-do Sentinel asked the court to make them public and a judge agreed.
Click to expand...
 
Napoleonthechimp said:
People are murdered all the time. It is not pleasant and I naturally do not support such actions, but what makes this particular case so special? Why should I be enraged? Because a child was murdered and someone got away with it?

The image of the world people have must be wonderful if this one case enrages them.
Click to expand...
well i guess we can close the thread now.
 
echoshifting said:
I love how any time this subject comes up the only arguments available to the defenders are:

1) Nancy Grace is crrrrraazzzy! You guys are crazy!

and

2) The verdict was NOT GUILTY, get a brain morans

Would anybody care to refute the actual evidence to explain why they feel any further discussion of this topic is either unwarranted or unfair to Ms. Anthony?

Murder happens. You are right in that, napoleon. But it's asinine to suggest that because you can't be expected to care about this case, others should share your mentality, as the only alternative is the mob. That is completely irrational.
Click to expand...

Because there was little evidence suggesting how the girl was actually killed, not even a body, and "bad mommy is super slut" isn't very powerful evidence of murder?
 
It's a shame that Conrad Murray got sentenced to prison for following Michael Jackson's demands. Yet this stupid bitch goes free.

What angers me more than anything is her "recollection" of how she got pregnant. She knows what happened, and it was all her fault.
 
There was no pretending I knew nothing about the case, because I did know nothing about the case. People are speaking in absolute definitive terms about this case but yet their knowledge is diluted by media outlets and shaped by other people's opinion.

If I do not agree that she is guilty (and subsequently express an appropriate amount of "rage" as others feel I should) then it does not mean I think she is innocent. Why not approach this objectively and look at what she is saying with fresh eyes that are not coloured by subjective opinion? Or are we so morally outraged that we can no longer think clearly?
 
Every time I see a picture of Caylee Anthony I feel sick knowing this disgusting sack of shit got away with it. It's hard to look at her without feeling incredibly sad. She trusted her mother, looked up to her, loved her etc. and a life was taken so this asshole could be free of responsibility and be able to party without regret. Just the lowest form of scum there could be, it doesn't get much worse than that. At least she didn't torture the kid first.
 
Napoleonthechimp said:
There was no pretending I knew nothing about the case, because I did know nothing about the case. People are speaking in absolute definitive terms about this case but yet their knowledge is diluted by media outlets and shaped by other people's opinion.

If I do not agree that she is guilty (and subsequently express an appropriate amount of "rage" as others feel I should) then it does not mean I think she is innocent. Why not approach this objectively and look at what she is saying with fresh eyes that are not coloured by subjective opinion? Or are we so morally outraged that we can no longer think clearly?
Click to expand...

Please enlighten us sheeple with your objective and unbiased wisdom.
 
aristotle said:
I like how no one posted the part about the deposition that clearly state the psychiatrist didn't think she was "crazy" or had any sort of disorder. I guess that would shake your opinions too much.
Click to expand...

From the deposition:

Describing her as "surprisingly cheerful but not manic," Danziger wrote:

"Simply this is someone who is sitting in jail. Her child is missing, presumed dead. She's -- while she had not yet been charged with murder, obviously, she's charged with crimes and is being accused by the whole world in the disappearance of the child. You would expect that would provoke some measure of distress, whether someone genuinely did it, whether someone was falsely accused, I mean, it doesn't matter. If my child was missing and I was in jail and being accused of it, I probably wouldn't eat or wouldn't be cheerful and wouldn't been able to read," which Anthony reportedly was doing just fine.
Click to expand...

Yeah I don't find their diagnoses particularly convincing.
 
Captain Sparrow said:
It's a shame that Conrad Murray got sentenced to prison for following Michael Jackson's demands. Yet this stupid bitch goes free.

What angers me more than anything is her "recollection" of how she got pregnant. She knows what happened, and it was all her fault.
Click to expand...

It's hilarious that anyone would believe a single word of what she says ever. Her mom says she's a liar. Her dad says she's a liar. Her brother says she's a liar. She had something like over 1000 individual lies alone on this case. She lied about a job she pretended to hold for years. She lied about the father of her kid. She lied about the molestation she pretended her father did. She lied about where she was for a month during when her child went missing. She lied about the Nanny she claimed to have (and she blamed for taking the kid). She lied about everything there ever is to lie about, and then something.

I don't think she ever uttered a single truth at any moment during the case ever. Why anyone would believe her about molestation or the father of her child is so far beyond me it's impossible to comprehend. Just gullibility, I suppose.

Napoleonthechimp said:
There was no pretending I knew nothing about the case, because I did know nothing about the case. People are speaking in absolute definitive terms about this case but yet their knowledge is diluted by media outlets and shaped by other people's opinion.
Click to expand...

How are you making ANY claims about the state of people's feelings on the case when you know nothing about it? You said you know nothing about it, and the first thing I and others did was list a massive amount of evidence for why we think what we do - flying in the face of your 'media shaped our opinions' bs. The media didn't shape my opinion - watching the court proceedings day in and day out and knowing what the evidence was shaped my opinion.

You're just trying to make a point you think is important but using a woefully terrible and inappropriate time to do it, since this isn't an example of what you're lashing out against.
 
Napoleonthechimp said:
People are murdered all the time. It is not pleasant and I naturally do not support such actions, but what makes this particular case so special? Why should I be enraged? Because a child was murdered and someone got away with it?

The image of the world people have must be wonderful if this one case enrages them.
Click to expand...

Thank god you are here to provide perspective. Please enter ever thread you see and say, "guys! People are dying in Africa, don't care about this."
 
Napoleonthechimp said:
People are murdered all the time. It is not pleasant and I naturally do not support such actions, but what makes this particular case so special? Why should I be enraged? Because a child was murdered and someone got away with it?

The image of the world people have must be wonderful if this one case enrages them.
Click to expand...

How did you get to this, from this, within minutes?:

Napoleonthechimp said:
I know nothing about this case, so why is everyone certain that she killed her child?
Click to expand...

It sounds like you had your own opinion before you even came in here.
 
Nice to know the circus is still being kept alive. Does anyone really care what she has to say?

We already know it's bullshit.
 
Angry Fork said:
How did you get to this, from this, within minutes?:



It sounds like you had your own opinion before you even came in here.
Click to expand...
Looks like you're projecting your own opinion onto me. My point is that people know full well these sorts of things happen all the time but their outrage is selective. Why? Because someone somewhere decided that this particular instance of "filicide" was worth more attention than any other similar case, even before she was found innocent.

The reason I've said all these things is because I remember a while back a British girl called Madeleine Mccann went missing whilst on vacation. There was massive media attention and eventually people became convinced her parents killed her. It was based on pretty much nothing but hearsay (far less substantial than the evidence in this case) but people were convinced. I wondered why did this one girl get a multi-million pound investigation into her disappearance whilst others get a routine police investigation?

If you're going to be outraged at one perceived miscarriage of justice then be consistent about it and extend that outrage to all of them.
 
Dude Abides said:
I know you are but what am I!

Are you going to even attempt to rebut the post you initially responded to or just continue to behave like a child in remedial reading class?
Click to expand...

Why would I respond to a blatant lie? You invented a fictitious argument in your head and accused everyone else of subscribing to it. Your smug sense of superiority is entirely unwarranted given that your behavior in this thread might be even snottier than Napoleonthechimp's. I have no interest in replying to the disingenuous argument of a cocksure internet lawyer.
 
Dude Abides said:
Because there was little evidence suggesting how the girl was actually killed, not even a body, and "bad mommy is super slut" isn't very powerful evidence of murder?
Click to expand...

We'll ignore the "super slut" angle, here, as I could care less about that. Regarding a body...you know they did find a body, right? I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to say.

As to the evidence of her cause of death, we will have to agree to disagree, as that is subjective and I feel there is ample evidence. Unless there's something in particular about the duct tape or chloroform evidence you'd care to refute.
 
first line of article: "In jailhouse interviews with two psychiatrists, Casey Anthony revealed yet a different theory for how her 2-year-old daughter Caylee may have died."

shes not in jail which makes these OLD accusations for people saying that she is making these accusations again.
someone decided to now reveal this info from her jailhouse days.
and theyre basically things we already knew she accused him of.
aaaaaaand she killed her kid.
 
Napoleonthechimp said:
Looks like you're projecting your own opinion onto me. My point is that people know full well these sorts of things happen all the time but their outrage is selective. Why? That is all I want to understand.
Click to expand...

Is it really selective? How many child murders received the coverage this one did. Show me an example of where people where outraged for one highly publicized murder and indifferent towards another?
 
echoshifting said:
We'll ignore the "super slut" angle, here, as I could care less about that. Regarding a body...you know they did find a body, right? I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to say.

As to the evidence of her cause of death, we will have to agree to disagree, as that is subjective and I feel there is ample evidence. Unless there's something in particular about the duct tape or chloroform evidence you'd care to refute.
Click to expand...


The "super slut" angle matters because that is what a lot of people whose views of human behavior in these situations is apparently dervied from Lifetime movies think is compelling evidence that she did it. The tattoo, partying, etc. are routinely cited by the mob.

You're correct about the body - my memory was flawed. There was a body but it was too badly decomposed to determine how she died.

The chloroform and duct tape evidence was not subjective but circumstantial. One expert testified that the duct tape was placed after the death, and therefore could not have been the cause. The decomposition evidence was also disputed.

It's more likely than not she did it but that isn't the legal standard.
 
Branduil said:
Why would I respond to a blatant lie? You invented a fictitious argument in your head and accused everyone else of subscribing to it. Your smug sense of superiority is entirely unwarranted given that your behavior in this thread might be even snottier than Napoleonthechimp's. I have no interest in replying to the disingenuous argument of a cocksure internet lawyer.
Click to expand...

But you did respond to it, of course. Just not substantively. It's ok - a lot of people got strangely emotional about this case.
 
truly101 said:
Is it really selective? How many child murders received the coverage this one did. Show me an example of where people where outraged for one highly publicized murder and indifferent towards another?
Click to expand...

I can't because people only record the ones that get attention. Why was this one case highlighted by the media even before she was found innocent? Who is responsible for that selection process? I would honestly like to trace the media representation of this case back to its origins to understand how these sorts of things get blown up to become national - or international - news.
 
Dude Abides said:
But you did respond to it, of course. Just not substantively. It's ok - a lot of people got strangely emotional about this case.
Click to expand...

Getting emotional when people lie about your arguments is neither strange nor exclusive to this story. Nor should it be surprising when insubstantial arguments do not provoke the substantial.
 
Dude Abides said:
The "super slut" angle matters because that is what a lot of people whose views of human behavior in these situations is apparently dervied from Lifetime movies think is compelling evidence that she did it. The tattoo, partying, etc. are routinely cited by the mob.

You're correct about the body - my memory was flawed. There was a body but it was too badly decomposed to determine how she died.

The chloroform and duct tape evidence was not subjective but circumstantial. One expert testified that the duct tape was placed after the death, and therefore could not have been the cause. The decomposition evidence was also disputed.

It's more likely than not she did it but that isn't the legal standard.
Click to expand...

Well, this is what branduil was talking about when he mentioned strawman arguments. You cannot use the extreme, ignorant opinions of some to invalidate the opinions of all. I think third trimester abortions are wrong. That does not align me with pro-life wingnuts.

The person who testified for the prosecution suggested that the duct tape was certainly there prior to death, whereas the person who testified for the defense suggested it was placed post-mortem. I'm not sure how the opinion of one invalidates the other; both were experts in their fields.

In my mind this is a classic case of the "CSI problem." Yes, it's true that the prosecution was forced to hang their hat on circumstantial evidence, but they would not have taken it to trial if they didn't think there was enough there to convict. It is not at all unheard of for a person to be convicted of murder based on such evidence. It's just that there's a new standard borne out of these crime shows which demands an extreme degree of "beyond a reasonable doubt."
 
Napoleonthechimp said:
I can't because people only record the ones that get attention. Why was this one case highlighted by the media even before she was found innocent? Who is responsible for that selection process? I would honestly like to trace the media representation of this case back to its origins to understand how these sorts of things get blown up to become national - or international - news.
Click to expand...

Its demographics. News agencies will pursue the stories they think affect their viewership the most. A dead little white girl, especially at the supposed hands of a young attractive but irresponsible mother is a lightning rod for ratings and viewership. That only explains why the outrage towards Casey Anthony was so widespread.

But you cannot assume that people don't get outraged about violence against children, particulary when they are aware of it. I was personally more repulsed and angry about the dead 4 month year old baby in Syria than Cailey Anthony because thats just fucking awful. I was upset about the Anthony case because I have a 3 year old girl, so its easier to imagine my daughter in that position
 
Branduil said:
Getting emotional when people lie about your arguments is neither strange nor exclusive to this story. Nor should it be surprising when insubstantial arguments do not provoke the substantial.
Click to expand...

I wasn't even talking to you. You haven't even made any arguments to lie about. I was pointing out to echoshifting that there are actual reasons to justify the acquittal beyond Nancy Grance and the fact that Anthony was acquitted and you got all worked up like I'd insulted your mother.

Your emotionalism really makes no sense.
 
Napoleonthechimp said:
Looks like you're projecting your own opinion onto me. My point is that people know full well these sorts of things happen all the time but their outrage is selective. Why? Because someone somewhere decided that this particular instance of "filicide" was worth more attention than any other similar case, even before she was found innocent.

The reason I've said all these things is because I remember a while back a British girl called Madeleine Mccann went missing whilst on vacation. There was massive media attention and eventually people became convinced her parents killed her. It was based on pretty much nothing but hearsay (far less substantial than the evidence in this case) but people were convinced. I wondered why did this one girl get a multi-million pound investigation into her disappearance whilst others get a routine police investigation?

If you're going to be outraged at one perceived miscarriage of justice then be consistent about it and extend that outrage to all of them.
Click to expand...

It's already been answered why. You just are like a robot who ignores the points raised because you have this cause you want to highlight.

Yes, media coverage over which case is or is not followed is selective. That's correct! But all your other comments about 'mob rule' are just projecting in order to build a case for your point. Because the 'mob' in this case is this topic, because I don't know who else you're talking about since you said you know nothing about this case. And the 'mob' in this case isn't irrationally calling her guilty because it's an awful case, they're doing so because of the substantial amount of evidence that strongly suggests she did it. And the 'mob' in this case is particularly selectively knowledgeable about this case because unlike so many of those other cases (which are probably equally worthy of being offended by), they did not have their court proceedings televised day in and out. Unlike some people, I can't make an informed decision about a case which I can't watch in full. It's a flip of the coin that this was the case where we had the ability to do this.

So again while your point may be sound, you chose the most inappropriate way to show it was sound, and the most ridiculous timing to do it.
 
15minutes.jpg
 
Just so people are clear, these are not "new" statements from Anthony. (The headline of the article is therefore unsurprisingly misleading). These are statements she gave before the murder trial.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Jake Paul vs. Anthony Joshua Set for December 19
2 3 4 5 6
253
2K
Kacho replied
Anthony Joshua injured in Nigeria car crash as local officials say two 'foreign nationals' dead
News 
23
618
demigod replied
Is nose ring theory true?
2
79
3K
Unknown? replied
Trailer for THE DEATH OF ROBIN HOOD starring Hugh Jackman, Jodie Comer, and Bill Skarsgård
15
219
spookyfish replied
  • Poll
Advice for new TV
10
339
Little Mac replied
Top Bottom