Casey Anthony going out to party for 30 days before her daughter was reported missing

Status
Not open for further replies.

Patrice CK Fan

Patrice Oneal and Louis C.K. Fan.
Apr 8, 2010
664
0
16
#1
pretty much sums up the murder case. Opie & Anthony are wrong.
 

outcry

Registered User
Nov 1, 2009
1,513
194
273
One of the 13 colonies
#2
That proves that she's a shit mom and a psycho, but does not prove that she murdered her daughter. Anthony is right.
 

Patrice CK Fan

Patrice Oneal and Louis C.K. Fan.
Apr 8, 2010
664
0
16
#3
That proves that she's a shit mom and a psycho, but does not prove that she murdered her daughter. Anthony is right.
Well, yes. But not when it can be used against you in a murder case. That is evidence, a motive.
 

LiddyRules

I'm Gonna Be The Bestest Pilot In The Whole Galaxy
Jun 1, 2005
141,477
49,801
644
#4
Why is this a thread?

And that is not a motive.
 

Patrice CK Fan

Patrice Oneal and Louis C.K. Fan.
Apr 8, 2010
664
0
16
#6
There has been millions of cases where the circumstantial evidence is enough to convince a person along before actual evidence in a case, and usually, most of the time. It is true they committed the crime.
 

fletcher

Darkness always says hello.
Donator
Feb 20, 2006
59,552
19,736
513
jersey
#8
Why is this a thread?

And that is not a motive.
x2. Another shitty Patrice CK thread. There are already 2 Casey Anthony threads, why start another?

edit: forgot the photo thread. 3 threads dedicated to this loving mother mourning the loss of her daughter.
 

LiddyRules

I'm Gonna Be The Bestest Pilot In The Whole Galaxy
Jun 1, 2005
141,477
49,801
644
#9
There has been millions of cases where the circumstantial evidence is enough to convince a person along before actual evidence in a case, and usually, most of the time. It is true they committed the crime.
I hope the Grammar Police take you into a back room with a phonebook.
 

Patrice CK Fan

Patrice Oneal and Louis C.K. Fan.
Apr 8, 2010
664
0
16
#12
I said, millions of cases circumstantial evidence has been used to convict a criminal where no actual evidence proving the person committed the crime. Yes, believe it or not. Circumstantial evidence is still evidence by the name alone, and usually the circumstantial evidence was right. But, what does it matter any more. America needs criminals out on the streets so they can make money off them. This is why Americans are allowed to own guns to it counterbalance the fucked up court system.
 

wangznthangz

Registered User
Jul 13, 2009
197
96
273
#13
There has been millions of cases where the circumstantial evidence is enough to convince a person along before actual evidence in a case, and usually, most of the time. It is true they committed the crime.
Is this Bobo?
 

maz

TRueWDTer
Feb 16, 2005
63,571
1,867
693
abu dhabi,pa.
#14
Convince a criminal ?

Why do they need convincing ?
And of what ?
 

fletcher

Darkness always says hello.
Donator
Feb 20, 2006
59,552
19,736
513
jersey
#15
I said, millions of cases circumstantial evidence has been used to convict a criminal where no actual evidence proving the person committed the crime.
And I said name one case where a person was convicted on circumstantial evidence alone.
 

LiddyRules

I'm Gonna Be The Bestest Pilot In The Whole Galaxy
Jun 1, 2005
141,477
49,801
644
#18

fletcher

Darkness always says hello.
Donator
Feb 20, 2006
59,552
19,736
513
jersey
#19
Google not working out, Patrice?
 

LiddyRules

I'm Gonna Be The Bestest Pilot In The Whole Galaxy
Jun 1, 2005
141,477
49,801
644
#20
That's all well and good but, how do you explain that heavily redacted source you posted that appears to have been edited to deceive the readers?
 

Absolutely

Self-Heavy
Jan 25, 2006
33,635
4,413
578
Saint Louis
#23
You really do start terrible threads...
And leave this poor innocent girl alone.
 

Stormrider666

Hell is home.
Mar 19, 2005
28,044
2,769
673
Bronx, NY
#24
And I said name one case where a person was convicted on circumstantial evidence alone.
His number his way off (there is no way its millions), you can bet there have been cases were people were convicted on circumstantial evidence or false eye witness reports. Many of these people were later proved innocent through DNA testing.

While her actions before she reported her daughter missing aren't enough to prove she was guilty of murder, I still believe that she did it.

Having said all that, there was no need for a new thread about this topic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.