[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
I did some reading on this case last night as I generally don’t follow high profile cases. I think you’re right that there was enough for manslaughter. The big question mark is the whole computer search for choloroform. The evidence showed that SOMEONE in that household did the search but the prosecution could not prove it was Casey. The mother lied about it, and I don’t buy her story - if she was worried that her dogs were eating plants you search “dog eats plant” not “chlorophyll” and then accidentally hit the search results for “chloroform.” My theory of the case, based on what little I know and pure speculation, was that Casey’s father, George, did it. He was sexually molesting Caylee, and when Caylee became old enough to speak, he realized she would tell on him, so he killed her. He then told Casey that he killed her, but also told her that if she turned him in he would throw her under the bus and tell the cops that she was the one who did it. So she kept her mouth shut, and partied and acted like nothing happened. That’s just as likely as anything. However, if that’s the case, then Casey is part of a conspiracy, among other things.
This was an emotionally-charged high profile case. When a little kid dies, everyone thinks that someone needs to go to jail for, and don’t really care who. Someone in that house killed that little girl - the evidence simply couldn’t establish who.
What pisses me off about high profile cases is that if the result is not what people expected then suddenly the entire system is fucked up. Wrong. We need to look at the big picture here - there are thousands of criminal cases filed every year that are handled correctly. Overall, the system works well. Once in a while you’re going to get a difficult case like this. But you don’t go changing a system that works well overall just because of ONE bad emotionally-charged case. And if the system is going to make an error I’d rather see a guilty person go free than an innocent person go to jail. But what the hell do I know - I’m just a dumb tax attorney.[/quote]
No offense Mike, but I hope your accounting skills are better than your critical thinking skills.
This system let my former roommate who got away with nearly $100 million and served less than 4 yrs in Federal prison with me.
LULZ @ thinking the “system works well most of the time.”
Just imagine all those Wall Street goons who walked away with your money, then cried boo and the government gave them more !
It’s no wonder these people are laughing at you, laughing at the weakness in the country. Iceland indicted it’s prime minister for direct involvement in reckless bank lending. Time we become Iceland. [/quote]
So let’s see - you’re basing your judgment on a sample size of 2: the Casey Anthony case and your roommate’s case. I’ve read literally thousands of criminal cases (not doing tax yet; currently in legal publishing) and the vast majority of those cases were handled competently. So yeah, I’m going to stand by my statement that the system works most of the time.
BTW - Did your roommate have to pay any of that $100M back in restitution? In the context of white collar crime, I believe it’s more important to pay as much money back as possible rather than impose lengthy prison sentences, although both would be nice. Restitution is a big component of financial crimes. A guy sitting in prison does no good for the little old lady who lost all of her retirement savings.
Finally, a defendant’s cooperation is also taken into account when calculating sentences. If your roommate knew information that implicated others in the scam and he assisted with the investigation, the prosecution no doubt cut him some slack. That’s plenty fair.
Care to make any other comments about my thinking ability?[/quote]
Yes, your thinking ability is even worse than I originally thought.
Sample size of 2 ? Did you think that only myself and my roommate were the ONLY 2 guys sitting in Federal prison? That’s funny. Did you gather that I suggested the system does not work most of the time ?
Yes, my roommate has an $11 million restitution, of which he pays $200/month to pay it back. Fear not amigo, he still has $89 Million remaining, so don’t shed a tear right away. He is almost 60 yrs old by now, and at that rate, he will NEVER come close to paying it back.
Did you think the guy who stole $100 Million cares about the little old lady who lost her savings LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!! Did you think the crack dealer who got a Federal dime (10 yrs) cares about the near $40k/yr it costs to incarcerate him ?
There are ways to reduce your time in prison without cooperating with the government, so my roommate served about 4 yrs while keeping no less than $89 Million in the worst case scenario, sound horrible to you ? Did you think these guys all of a sudden lose their money when they get caught ? Ask Bernie Madoff, who had a SPECK of his money taken from him, yet still hides the large bulk of his money.
All of you Nancies who think “the system works, and justice prevailed” assume that these people care about that. ALL THEY WANT IS TO WALK WITH AS MUCH MONEY AND AS LESS PUNISHMENT AS POSSIBLE ! These people have no remorse, no guilt, they are laughing at all of you. How do I know ? Because I spent years with some of them behind the wall, in a cell, on a bus, on Con-Air.
Mike, I am sure you are probably a great CPA, very naive and gullible, but I have no doubt you can crunch numbers like a champ. But the fact that you think Wall Street crooks care about the little old lady who lost her life savings only shows how you are NOWHERE near the right mentality on how to do deal with these people. My roommate took the risk, knowingly, he gambled and won.
Hey, want to know what we did in one of the 4 institutions I saw him in ? Workout and tan, all day long. When we weren’t working out, we watched movies in our movie theatre (yes, Club Fed, aka Federal Prison Camp Nellis) had a bowling alley, a pool, and a movie theatre there. Really effective at punishing people for their crimes, right?
