Casey Anthony is not guilty of first degree murder...

Monty

Brilliant...and Canadian
In the Parks
No
I guess before there was so much technology and such to gather fingerprints, DNA, residual evidence, etc. that nobody was ever guilty of anything. No murders. No rapes. No theft. No robbery. Nothing. Or maybe crime didn't exist before television with the CSI's, the NCIS's that taught the world that the only way to prove someone did something wrong is with all the wonderful forensic science and evidence-gathering techniques. Yeah, because everything you see on tv is real.

Yes, the prosecution brought only circumstantial evidence to the table. They didn't have the benefit of a fresh body laden with prints and "pretty" trace evidence. If they had only presented a few bits of circumstantial evidence then I could see where they would be reaching with a few what-ifs. That wasn't the case. They had a whooooole load of signs that flashed "Casey", many avenues that all ended with "Casey". If all the signs point in 1 direction without a single sign that states otherwise then why is there a need to have question? An innocent person does not need to lie. It's that simple. An innocent person's parents would not feel the need to change their stories and lie. Also, an innocent person's parents would be rejoicing that their child found justice in being found not guilty. Whether or not Casey's hand was the one that kept her daughter from taking another breath is irrelevant. She was involved. Nobody questions that. She did not lift a finger to do a single thing to help her daughter at any time. If she was involved she's just as guilty as anyone else involved. Anyone and everyone involved should rightfully share the same fate.

I'm hopeful that no matter where Casey Anthony decides to go people will recognize her and let their voices be heard. If she turned up in my neighborhood she sure wouldn't be made to feel welcome. Let the rest of her life be a thing of misery.

Her parents weren't likely to be celebrating with her. Her defence team threw her father under the bus saying he was abusive and that the reason she lied was that she was afraid of him.

As for the bolded text above, that you make that statement shows me that you completely misunderstand the legal system. Of course it's relevant whether her hand kept her daughter from taking another breath, that's precisely what she was accused and acquitted of!
 

Monty

Brilliant...and Canadian
In the Parks
No
Agreed. This is why I have my list of whack-jobs I do NOT contribute to....at the top would be Kate Goslin, Charlie Sheen, and a whole list of the gossip-column's finest....:lol:

As a hot-blooded American girl who totally prides herself on the freedoms my father and our nation's for-fathers faught to provide & maintain, I will be the first to tell you that this "right to know" thing is crap. I couldn't agree with you more. There's a time and place for information to be given and received. Criminal investigations and legal proceedings aren't gossip or entertainment.

I'm sorry, I'm really not trying to pick on you...

I think you missed the middle paragraph of my post [you bolded the first and last and said you agree...], or at least missed its intent.

I'm trying to say that you [and a whole lot of others - thus my not trying to pick on you specifically] likely got caught up in the media hype and "show" and lost focus on what was actually presented in court, which is what the jury dealt with exclusively. If it were not for the blanket rumour and gossip-laden coverage and legalese-spouting talking heads during the trial, you might not have such clearly defined opinions of the case. If you hadn't been "steered" by the very slanted media presentation, I'm not sure you would have those same opinions.

Please don't take this as a slight, it's certainly not intended that way. The trial has created a very emotionally-charged environment and a very large number of people got caught up in it. I just think if you look at everything objectively, there just isn't enough to reach any conclusion that can be defended with any degree of certainty.
 

DisneyGigi

Well-Known Member
The justice system in our country is what it is. It's probably more fair than many countries in this world. However, it is NOT 100% correct 100% of the time. How many people have spent decades in prison only to be set free once DNA testing was finally able to prove their innocence? Innocent people are convicted and guilty people are acquitted. Happens every day because we are human and humans will never be perfect. Ever.

The prosecution didn't prove without a doubt to this jury that she was 100% guilty. Doesn't mean she wasn't. Have I passed judgement on her? Everything that I know to be factual in regards to this case points directly to this woman who was no kind of a mother. To not report her child missing, to party and act like it's a great time while she's missing, to give false information to police & investigators, to lie, to deceive, to act more concerned about her own plight in jail than for that of her lost child....yeah....a mother who truly doesn't know and wants only for her child to have justice does NOT act in this way. A guilty person does. That's what I see and that's what I know. So yes, I have passed judgement. As a mother, I absolutely have. And whoever the guilty parties in this dispicable murder are :)rolleyes:) will not be living with this for the rest of their lives...they'll answer for it for all time and eternity.


Sweetpee I agree 100% with you. You completely echoed my thoughts. I have always felt the same way about Casey Anthony that I did about Susan Smith. From the very beginning in both cases, as a mom, it just did not seem right. She may have gotten away with it in a court of law (and Susan Smith, IMO got off very light for what she did as well) but they both have to square up with God one day & all that is hidden will be made known & we all reap what we sow in the end.
 

sweetpee_1993

Well-Known Member
I'm sorry, I'm really not trying to pick on you...

I think you missed the middle paragraph of my post [you bolded the first and last and said you agree...], or at least missed its intent.

I'm trying to say that you [and a whole lot of others - thus my not trying to pick on you specifically] likely got caught up in the media hype and "show" and lost focus on what was actually presented in court, which is what the jury dealt with exclusively. If it were not for the blanket rumour and gossip-laden coverage and legalese-spouting talking heads during the trial, you might not have such clearly defined opinions of the case. If you hadn't been "steered" by the very slanted media presentation, I'm not sure you would have those same opinions.

Please don't take this as a slight, it's certainly not intended that way. The trial has created a very emotionally-charged environment and a very large number of people got caught up in it. I just think if you look at everything objectively, there just isn't enough to reach any conclusion that can be defended with any degree of certainty.


I don't take it that way at all. You aren't one of the usual pickers. The bolded stuff is just what stood out to me the most.

I do think that the media goes way too far too soon. They do it for ratings in the name of "freedom of disclosure/infomation". I agree with that. I think we'd all be better if we hadn't seen the case televised daily (a lot of which I did actually watch) and the media circus that ensued. I question at what point the science stuff became utterly required to find a person guilty, at what point the lack of the tv-perfect evidence declares a person not guilty. Would I have found her guilty if I had sat on that jury and heard only what they did? Not sure. There's lots of things in life that it's just not fair to say "I would do this" or "I would do that". There are situations you just don't know what you'd do until you're there. I think there's things we like to think we would do in these situations. I can honestly say that I'd like to think I'd have used common sense. I'd like to think that if I'd heard what the jury did and seen what was presented to them it would have been enough circumstances to convince me that that many coincidences, strange signs, odd behavior, and inconsistancies says that she is guilty. None of us will ever sit in those jurors' seats or know for sure what we would've said or done. I do know without a doubt that learning more after the fact would torture me for the rest of my life if in retrospect I thought I was wrong.

People say the prosecution didn't do their job but I think they did the best they could with what they had. What more would you like them to have done? They didn't have the "pretty" things to use because all the evidence that we rely on nowadays to seal the deal wasn't available to them after the body decomposed and sat for so long. Who's to say had the investigation not been lengthened and they weren't so quick to place charges that Casey wouldn't have slipped-up and run her mouth? Maybe the investigators took a gamble putting charges on her as soon as they did to see if she'd run her mouth from jail? Who knows?
 

sweetpee_1993

Well-Known Member
Her parents weren't likely to be celebrating with her. Her defence team threw her father under the bus saying he was abusive and that the reason she lied was that she was afraid of him.

As for the bolded text above, that you make that statement shows me that you completely misunderstand the legal system. Of course it's relevant whether her hand kept her daughter from taking another breath, that's precisely what she was accused and acquitted of!

The defense might have accused her dad of pretty unspeakable stuff but her mother was still willing to modify her story to cover for her. I don't know. It may be just me but if for some reason I was willing to commit a crime by lying under oath for someone and the desired result was achieved I'd prob'ly be a bit happy about it. Didn't see any of that. Strange, indeed.

My statement as to whether or not her hand was the one to physically take her daughter's life points the the fact that if you take part in the commission of a crime you are equally guilty in what crime took place. If a group of 3 people walk into a convenience store all with guns pointed at the clerk and only 1 is handed a wad of cash then all 3 are guilty of the robbery. They will all be charged with the same crime. Of course then 1 of the 3 will likely strike a deal pleading to a lesser charge and put the other 2 away by testifying against them. Even if Casey didn't murder her daughter herself she was directly involved, knows what happened, and to date has done absolutely nothing to bring the person who did commit the murder to justice. Not a thing.

I don't misunderstand the legal system. I don't agree with it 100% of the time but I know how it works. That's why I say I question our legal system at times like these because sometimes I think we put too much faith in it. Laws and such were written by humans and humans aren't perfect. Neither is the legal system. I think the law is too nice, actually, but that's my opinion. In my opinion, if you lie and cover up things in an investigation then you are an obstruction making yourself a participant in the crime in question. All parties taking part deserve the same fate. Don't like that thought? Stay out of that situation and be proactive in bringing the persons who are wrong to justice if you know something. It's that simple. Legal loop holes can be argued forever which is a waste to me.

I think a more accurate way for me to express my feelings about the verdict in this court case would be to say that I am upset at how it ended. I do not feel as if moral justice was served (nothing to do with legal justice). I'm an idealistic girl. Can't stand to watch movies that don't have a happily-ever-after just because life is short and I have that need. As an idealistic person I often think that just because something is right it will end that way because it's what should be. Unfortunately, our legal system doesn't work that way. In the eyes of the law, the judge & jury, it matters not what a person did or didn't do..it matters not what's right or what's wrong..it's what can be proven. I know this very well. It's one of the reasons I chose to walk away from law enforcement. It's not a tasty pill to swallow for a girl with a heart like mine. I felt myself turn cold and indifferent with a decreasing faith in what was right. I didn't like me that way.

In this case the right proof was not to be had because by the time Casey let on that anything was wrong even to her own mother evidence was compromised by decomposition. My mom's ex, my other dad who raised me (in Orlando), had friends who used to go out searching for little Calee for hours in the evenings. She just wasn't found soon enough. I imagine right about now those that spent their time searching are pretty sad, too, wondering how different this could've all been had they found her remains on one of their many searches. You know? You just sorta hope for the "right" ending to come out in the wash when the opportunity is there for it to happen for all those people, not just for the innocent little victim. If that makes me ignorant or wrong, well, so be it. I'm cool with that.
 

Laura

22
Premium Member
My statement as to whether or not her hand was the one to physically take her daughter's life points the the fact that if you take part in the commission of a crime you are equally guilty in what crime took place. If a group of 3 people walk into a convenience store all with guns pointed at the clerk and only 1 is handed a wad of cash then all 3 are guilty of the robbery. They will all be charged with the same crime. Of course then 1 of the 3 will likely strike a deal pleading to a lesser charge and put the other 2 away by testifying against them. Even if Casey didn't murder her daughter herself she was directly involved, knows what happened, and to date has done absolutely nothing to bring the person who did commit the murder to justice. Not a thing.

You sound as though you somehow know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Caylee was murdered. Caylee being murdered is simply a theory, and one for which there is no proof to back it up. My question is, if the top medical examiners and investigators in our country haven't been able to determine that she was murdered, then how do YOU, an armchair spectator, know she was? You can't convict someone on a hunch.
 

The Mom

Moderator
Premium Member
The defense might have accused her dad of pretty unspeakable stuff but her mother was still willing to modify her story to cover for her. I don't know. It may be just me but if for some reason I was willing to commit a crime by lying under oath for someone and the desired result was achieved I'd prob'ly be a bit happy about it. Didn't see any of that. Strange, indeed.

.

Her daughter was facing the death penalty if found guilty. So, she had already lost her grandchild, and was facing losing her daughter.

Would I lie to save my daughter's life, even if she had turned out to be a despicable person who is accused of committing an unthinkable crime? Would I feel guilt about how she had turned out, since it was my responsibilty as a parent to raise her to be a decent human being?

I think I would, because even with their faults (which in my case, are very minor) I love my children more than life itself, and would do anything to save them. Imagine if your child was facing life in prison, or the electric chair. A mother would have to be incredibly strong to make the "right" choice - I don't know that I have that strength. I don't know that I could look at my daughter and tell her that "I refuse to lie to save you."

But I certainly would not be happy about being in that position. I would feel shame. Maybe relief that she wasn't going to be executed or imprisoned. But not happiness.


Edited to add - This would be my feeling, even if I believed her to be innocent, and wrongly accused. If her behavior had been as callous as Casey's, in the face of a missing child, I would still feel shame. And not like my daughter. Love her? Yes. But want to rejoice, congratulate, and embrace her? No.

If I knew she was guilty, I would want to be as far away from her as possible.
 

sweetpee_1993

Well-Known Member
You sound as though you somehow know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Caylee was murdered. Caylee being murdered is simply a theory, and one for which there is no proof to back it up. My question is, if the top medical examiners and investigators in our country haven't been able to determine that she was murdered, then how do YOU, an armchair spectator, know she was? You can't convict someone on a hunch.


Why would anyone make an accident appear to be anything else? Because I **have** dealt with parents whose children had just accidentally died I **know** that the actions of Casey are not those of a mother whose child just died accidentally. Because I **have** dealt with people who tried to make a crime appear accidental I do see her actions and behavior being consistent with that of a guilty party. Not just your average armchair spectator. I don't proclaim myself an expert by any stretch. My experiences are mine to rely on. I'm entitled to my opinion same as you and everyone else. :wave:
 

sweetpee_1993

Well-Known Member
Mom, I think the position her mother is in is another of those I'm just not sure how I'd handle. It's one of those you don't really ever know until you're there. Ya know? I'd like to think I'd step back and let my child live by the decisions he/she made and be responsible for said actions. I do not imagine myself lying under oath or committing a crime to cover for him/her. I see myself being a really bad witness nobody wants on the stand before I go there & lie. I dunno. I hope I've gotten across to my boys over the years the importance of considering how their actions and/or expectations affect others. For example: Sometimes telling a secret to someone isn't only a vote of confidence because you were willing to share it, it can also be a burden of knowledge you've given them to carry. Ya know? I'd like to think I'd not be burdened with involvement to begin with.
 

The Mom

Moderator
Premium Member
Why would anyone make an accident appear to be anything else? Because I **have** dealt with parents whose children had just accidentally died I **know** that the actions of Casey are not those of a mother whose child just died accidentally. Because I **have** dealt with people who tried to make a crime appear accidental I do see her actions and behavior being consistent with that of a guilty party. Not just your average armchair spectator. I don't proclaim myself an expert by any stretch. My experiences are mine to rely on. I'm entitled to my opinion same as you and everyone else. :wave:

This is why anyone involved in law enforcement is excluded from a jury. You have experience with criminals, arrest procedure, etc that will color your opinion as to guilt or innocence, above and beyond the evidence actually presented by the state. You are not a jury of her peers - you have more knowledge about crime than the average person.

It's the same reason why my social worker SIL has never been on a jury - she has more sympathy for someone accused of a crime than average, and will read between the lines.

This is why someone in the medical profession would never be allowed to sit on a malpractice case. And why malpractice lawyers prefer that a case be decided by a jury. As a civil case, it only has to be more likely than not, and no one on the jury has ever been a doctor or other healthcare professional, while most have been a patient, with varying experiences with the healthcare system.

If your child has a sudden onset of fever, headache, and lethargy, you would probably think "Flu." I would fear meningitis if it were my child. I would see the same symptoms (evidence) and come to a different conclusion, based on my experience.


There is an old saying that if you are innocent, you want to be tried before a judge. If you're guilty, insist on a trial by jury. Which is why I opted to have a judge hear my case when I sued someone, and the defendant wanted a jury trial. I wanted it to be decided according to law, not a jury made up of people who grew up in the same town with him, vs the Yankee who only lived there part time. ;)
 

The Mom

Moderator
Premium Member
Mom, I think the position her mother is in is another of those I'm just not sure how I'd handle. It's one of those you don't really ever know until you're there. Ya know? I'd like to think I'd step back and let my child live by the decisions he/she made and be responsible for said actions. I do not imagine myself lying under oath or committing a crime to cover for him/her. I see myself being a really bad witness nobody wants on the stand before I go there & lie. I dunno. I hope I've gotten across to my boys over the years the importance of considering how their actions and/or expectations affect others. For example: Sometimes telling a secret to someone isn't only a vote of confidence because you were willing to share it, it can also be a burden of knowledge you've given them to carry. Ya know? I'd like to think I'd not be burdened with involvement to begin with.

God willing, we will never be in that position. Which is why I don't think a parent should be forced to testify against a child (even a grown one) and any testimony given in a child's defense should be viewed with a grain of salt. I highly doubt she is the first mother to lie on the stand to save a child from punishment.
 

tizzo

Member
People say the prosecution didn't do their job but I think they did the best they could with what they had. What more would you like them to have done?

Couple of points on this.

First, that the prosecution didn't prove their case isn't necessarily a criticism of the prosecution. Now, I do have certain criticisms of the prosecution. But it's still possible for them to have done nothing wrong, and still be unable to prove their case, because that's just how it is.

But none of that is really the point, and I think this is where (at least for me) you go off the rails a little bit. A verdict is not a reward or punishment for the lawyers, even though it may seem that way sometimes. The jury didn't acquit because the prosecution didn't do a good enough job and had to be punished. They acquitted because the evidence presented, which may well have been every shred of evidence that existed, did not prove the charges. And for that reason, the argument "what more could they have done", even if the answer is "nothing", is not relevant.

In an ideal world, the verdict is about whether or not the evidence by itself proves the guilt of the accused. In this case, it seems undeniable that it did not.

Also, a verdict is about whether the accused is guilty of a specific charge. Anthony was not charged with neglecting her child. She was not charged with acting inappropriately, with failing to report her child's disappearance, or with covering up an accidental death. She was charged with, and convicted of, lying to investigators. Everything else she was charged with was not proven.
 

sublimesting

Well-Known Member
She was not declared "innocent". There was a jury verdict of "not guilty".

Not the same thing.

Correct, if this had not been a death penalty case I think she may very well have been declared guilty. She obviously did this. The jurors were fools and think real life works like television in that they had to show scentific proof for every little thing. Fact is that there are lots of cases where the how and even the why are not shown yet the person was clearly guilty. This is such a case.

Any parent can tell you right off the bat that a missing child is reported in minutes. Had her parents not called her on it she never ever would have reported it.

Who looks up chloroform? Seriously, that's just not done!

Hair sample had chloroform in it. There doesn't need to be a lot of hair jury, one piece will do.

Casey's DNA was not on the duct tape! !!! I wouldn't ecpect it to be. Ever hear of gloves not to mention degradation?

Trunk smelled of death. Death is death. If you have evr smelled it you'd know. Why this weekend, I had a crappy baby diaper and old McDonalds I left in a hot car for 2 weeks accidentally. It did not smell like death. It stunk bad, but death....no.

Casey was out partying while her daughter was missing....doesn't happen. Just does NOT happen....unless you did it. If my daughter was missing I would horrified for the rest of my life and a shell of a human for ever more.

She lied to police. Why WHy WHY!!!!!!????

Seriously, why.
Not to mention her hamfisted attempts at defense.

And here are 2 words that lead me to think murder: duct tape and chloroform. Where is the "accident" there.
 

Patrick_Ears

Well-Known Member
It's ashame to see alot of people fighting over this case. There was only 12 people on the jury, not the entire world. Do i think she did it. Ohh yes.... But can we PROVE IT!!! NO!!! That's why she was not GUILTY. I feel bad for the Jury's on this case. Put yourself in there shoes and you tell us on how you would feel right now.
 

Laura

22
Premium Member
Why would anyone make an accident appear to be anything else? Because I **have** dealt with parents whose children had just accidentally died I **know** that the actions of Casey are not those of a mother whose child just died accidentally. Because I **have** dealt with people who tried to make a crime appear accidental I do see her actions and behavior being consistent with that of a guilty party. Not just your average armchair spectator. I don't proclaim myself an expert by any stretch. My experiences are mine to rely on. I'm entitled to my opinion same as you and everyone else. :wave:

MOST people know a parent of a child who has died and most people know how most HEALTHY individuals would react if their child died. Casey had imaginary friends, an imaginary world she lived in, parents who treated her terribly, and was taught from the day she was born to LIE LIE LIE about everything. She's not your average mom and you can't make a judgement on her because of your experience with NORMAL moms.

Like The Mom said, you have a bias that would prevent you from ever being a fair juror. The juror's job is not to look at their own past life experiences and biases and judge the defendant based on that. They are to look ONLY AT THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN THE CASE and come to a conclusion from that and that alone. They are instructed to keep an OPEN MIND until the very END of the trial. That is what makes it FAIR.

This case actually began just a couple days after I served on a jury so all of the jury instructions were fresh in my mind. I watched the case, almost in its entirety, and kept an open mind throughout, despite the media and tried to think like a juror. Based on the EVIDENCE (not on the MEDIA HYPE), Caylee could have very well have died by accident.

I think most of the public who followed this case had selective hearing. They only paid attention to the parts that made Casey guilty, they ignored the parts that could have made her NOT guilty.

Any parent can tell you right off the bat that a missing child is reported in minutes. Had her parents not called her on it she never ever would have reported it.

Who looks up chloroform? Seriously, that's just not done!

Hair sample had chloroform in it. There doesn't need to be a lot of hair jury, one piece will do.

Casey's DNA was not on the duct tape! !!! I wouldn't ecpect it to be. Ever hear of gloves not to mention degradation?

Trunk smelled of death. Death is death. If you have evr smelled it you'd know. Why this weekend, I had a crappy baby diaper and old McDonalds I left in a hot car for 2 weeks accidentally. It did not smell like death. It stunk bad, but death....no.

Casey was out partying while her daughter was missing....doesn't happen. Just does NOT happen....unless you did it. If my daughter was missing I would horrified for the rest of my life and a shell of a human for ever more.

She lied to police. Why WHy WHY!!!!!!????

Seriously, why.
Not to mention her hamfisted attempts at defense.

And here are 2 words that lead me to think murder: duct tape and chloroform. Where is the "accident" there.

Again, you've only paid attention to ONE side of the case, completely ignoring the other side, like the rest of the public has.

1. Caylee was never missing. Casey knew where she was and this was said on day 1 of the trial. There was no "missing child" to report.

2. Casey looked up chloroform immediately after reading a post on her boyfriend's Myspace where he was going on about chloroform, just like a lot of people with curiosity about their boyfriend would do.

3. Yeah Casey's DNA was not on the duct tape. NEITHER WAS CAYLEE'S!!! Explain that? She decomposed all over the duct tape for 6 months, without leaving a trace of DNA?

4. Only a few people testified that the trunk smelled like death. An equal number of others testified it smelled either like trash, or they didn't smell anything at all. You can't just "conveniently" ignore half of the testimonies.

5. I happen to think that someone who loved their daughter for 2 years would not murder her and then go out and party if they were in their right mind. The only way I believe this is possible is if they believed their daughter was still alive and on a fun little vacation with an imaginary nanny named Zanny. The girl was nuts and in complete denial that Caylee had died.

For the record, I am not claiming to know what happened to Caylee. I have kept an open mind throughout, and there wasn't enough evidence to persuade me either way. I don't form my opinions based on the media or hype, so I will continue to have an open mind and believe it's just as possible that Caylee was murdered in cold blood as it is that she died by accident until some evidence comes out to prove it one way or the other. You know what they say. When you assume you make an...
 

MKCP 1985

Well-Known Member
Well, the judge seems to have thought she was guilty. It would have been so easy to deny the defense motion to treat all the convictions as a single offense, sentence her to the maximum sentence and maximum fines but have the convictions run concurrently and then she would be released probably today or tomorrow.

Instead, he denied the motion and gave her the maximum sentence, having them run consecutively, even recognizing that would likely only keep her in jail for another month to six weeks. (It turns out she will probably be released in a week) . . and while she can appeal, the time it would take to consider the appeal would mean she would serve the remaining time before the appeal could even be heard. :shrug:

That's a judge who did her no favors.
 

Master Yoda

Pro Star Wars geek.
Premium Member
Well, the judge seems to have thought she was guilty. It would have been so easy to deny the defense motion to treat all the convictions as a single offense, sentence her to the maximum sentence and maximum fines but have the convictions run concurrently and then she would be released probably today or tomorrow.

Instead, he denied the motion and gave her the maximum sentence, having them run consecutively, even recognizing that would likely only keep her in jail for another month to six weeks. (It turns out she will probably be released in a week) . . and while she can appeal, the time it would take to consider the appeal would mean she would serve the remaining time before the appeal could even be heard. :shrug:

That's a judge who did her no favors.
She will be a free woman in 6 days.

http://www.euronews.net/newswires/1001749-casey-anthony-will-be-released-from-jail-july-13/
 

tizzo

Member
Well, the judge seems to have thought she was guilty. It would have been so easy to deny the defense motion to treat all the convictions as a single offense, sentence her to the maximum sentence and maximum fines but have the convictions run concurrently and then she would be released probably today or tomorrow.

Instead, he denied the motion and gave her the maximum sentence, having them run consecutively, even recognizing that would likely only keep her in jail for another month to six weeks. (It turns out she will probably be released in a week) . . and while she can appeal, the time it would take to consider the appeal would mean she would serve the remaining time before the appeal could even be heard. :shrug:

That's a judge who did her no favors.

Given how he conducted the trial, I don't think anyone should have been expecting any favors.
 

MKCP 1985

Well-Known Member

Yep, I said a week. Six days . . . not going to split hairs. Point is, she could have been sentenced concurrently and gone home as quickly as the jail could process her out, which would have been today or tomorrow at the latest.

There was nothing more the judge could do to keep her in jail any longer, given the punishment set forth for the crimes for which she was convicted.

Gotta make room in the jail for all those other Florida felons. :lookaroun
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom