Caylee Anthony V/S Casey Anthony (comparison chart)

Minderwiz said:

Thank you tarotlyn - I'm more than happy to accept that you were not shouting but Prudence does make a good point, and, as I too used capitals for emphasis, it's worth us both remembering that other people are following the thread and may draw the wrong conclusion. So now let's put that behind us and say no more about it.

Click to expand...

Mum's the word!

Minderwiz said:

Perhaps it would also be a good idea for you to start another thread at some point in which you explain how you make your judgements based on the combined hard aspects. I may be a sceptic when in comes to the outers, but most western Astrologers use them and I think members would enjoy seeing how you work and how to apply the method. I promise not to interfere, other than to ask factual questions

Click to expand...

Thank you for the invite regarding starting another thread (based on combined
hard aspects) but I think I will decline that because this thread was so off topic that I do
not want to chance that again in this forum. However, I may pop in and out of here, now and then,
just to comment on whatever. I have been a member here about 4 1/2 years and I have not
posted in the astrology forum that often, (nor that much in the numerology forum) because
I wanted to spend my energies more in the direction of my beloved tarot life. That is where my heart truly is. TAROT Love it!

Minderwiz said:

On the court cases;

The Alan Leo is of especial interest to Astrologers - Leo was convicted under the Witchcraft Act1735 (yes a piece of legislation that was nearly 200 years old at the time of the case) The Act was used to specifically target 'fortune tellers' If I can quote from Kim Farnell's biography of Leo;

By 1912, the number of fortune tellers in London had risen rapidly and it was estimated that between six and seven hundred were operating at that time. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner issued an order that fortune tellers of all types within his jurisdiction must remove all words such as "palmist", "clairvoyant" and "astrologer" from their doorplates, window signs and other public advertisements, and public concern was heightened enough for questions to be asked in the House of Commons in 1911 and 1912.

Leo was charged with having told fortunes on both 27 February and 8 April 1914. He pleaded not guilty. In February 1914, Hugh MacLean of the City of London Police had written to Leo under the name of William Hammond asking for a list of charges for horoscopes. He received in response a letter and a booklet entitled The Stars and How to Read Them. McLean then sent off for a ten shilling horoscope. For his money McLean received a Delineation of Nativity, and the advice that he could either purchase a more detailed judgment or add to it himself by studying Leo's books The Key to Your Own Nativity or The Progressed Horoscope.

The section of the report entitled Future Prospects was read out in court. It was shown that when the letter was sent, Leo was abroad and couldn't have written it. The case was dismissed, but costs were refused.

So Leo got off, on the grounds that he didn't send the letter (it was probably a stock letter and sent by an assistant but I don't know for certain).

However in 1917 a second prosecution was brought against him under the same Act and on a broadly similar charge. Leo argued that Astrology showed only tendencies, not fate and indeed his defence rested amongst other things on the phrase 'the stars incline they do not compel' However the magistrates, unlike the Evangeline Adams' Judge, refused to let Leo argue that Astrology could be valid on that or any basis. One phrase sunk Leo - in his 100 page report he said 'At this time a death in your family circle will cause you sorrow The prosecution leapt on it and said this was a clear case of fortune telling. How could Leo argue that Astrology was about tendencies, when he said that - Was death a tendency or was there a tendency towards death?

Leo was convicted and fined £5 but also had to pay costs of £25 (about £1,000 in today's money).

The upshot of the case was a retreat by Astrologers in the UK from making any sort of forecast, for fear of prosecution. Astrology became almost exclusively concerned with character reading - Horary for example would definitely have fallen foul of the Act. These two prosecutions did much to change the way Astrology was practised and really forecasting techniques were downplayed even into the sixties, a decade or more after the Act was repealed.

The other case Dave quoted was of Lilly's forecast of the Great Fire of London. The forecast was made in 1652, the fire occurred in 1666 - he ended up having to give evidence to the House of Commons Committee that was set up to investigate its causes. The forecast itself was in the form of a hieroglyphic (a sort of coded drawing). There was a lot of suspicion that the fire was deliberately started and might have major political overtones, as it was only 6 years since the restoration of the monarchy. Lilly had supported the Parliament side in the Civil War and he had quite a few enemies because of that. Lilly managed to convince the Committee that the forecast was not precise and that he knew nothing about the fire.

Both the Lilly and Leo cases centre on the ability of Astrologers to make forecasts. I think what tarotlyn had in mind was the use of Astrologers for 'personality profiling' by the law enforcement agencies. Some years before I retired, one of my team who taught on Human Resource Management courses happened to mention that in France Astrologers were sometimes used for the character analysis of job candidates. I've not seen any corroborating evidence for that but if it is done in that context, is it a major leap to suggest it could be done elsewhere and for other purposes than candidate selection?

Click to expand...

Thank you, Minderwiz, for giving all this VERY interesting information above,
it is something to think about, for all of us, perhaps realizing just how lucky we are at this
time in history, to be able to be on this very forum to be able to discuss our loved Metaphysical subjects.

I actually see what you are saying about how things were in London after Leo's conviction
regarding how astrologers, etc. were to keep a low profile and stick to mainly character analysis
of job candidates (which IS an interesting facet in itself!). And you said that lasted somewhat
into the 60's. I don't think it had the same affect on astrologers here in the USA though...
some, but not as much. So maybe that is why some of us are bolder in our thinking and
acting in the USA regarding these subjects.

Do we have an 'astrological history' thread going? I thought I saw the title amongst the this forum.
I think I would like to check that out...maybe behind the scenes...LOL

Thank you Minderwiz for your comments on the criminal court cases of those two astrologers,
which were most interesting indeed.



RE: Casey Anthony's sentencing and release date:
She may get 1,043 days taken off her sentence for good behavior, which is 2.85 years taken
off her 4 year sentence. However, she was also convicted of felony check fraud charges and
it is not now clear if they are applying that sentence as having been consecutively served or not?

All of these things are being talked about right now, between the judge and the defense lawyers,
behind closed doors

I will be back to post the exact dates as soon as they are announced on our live 'court channel.'

HUGS
tarotlyn

Minderwiz said:

Thanks for the update!

It looks like the judge is trying to give her as long a sentence as he possibly can, possibly because of that outcry.

I know she cannot be tried again on the same charges but I still find it odd that charges were not added to cover her defence. She claimed that Caylee died accidentally in the swimming pool and that she panicked and hid the body.

Now over here that could well have led to charges of neglect - leaving a two year old unsupervised around a swimming pool - charges of allowing her death - no supervision = no rescue once she fell in - and charges of unlawful burial, failing to notify a death and no doubt possibly more charges. None of those charges would allege actions which directly led to her death Is there any prospect that such charges could be brought?

I'm not saying she would receive a longer sentence but as those charges are more directly concerned with death than lying to a police officer, they might be thought as more fitting to the crime and they would also bring closure to the case in terms of Caylee's fate. As it is the police have an unsolved death on their hands - do they now just shelve the case?

Click to expand...

What you are saying is (almost exactly) what everyone else is saying over here...
(The public crowds, the media, and other observing lawyers and judges are stating most of what you just said.)

It is also being said that if she does serve any further time in jail, that she might be put
into the public section of the jail and would not have further physical protection and that it
could be very dangerous for her. Some have commented that she could even be attacked
there and maybe even die as a result. So some are saying, that in that case, she will never
go free!

I believe that right now, the court and the local police are VERY worried of crowd reaction
once her exact sentence is announced!


EXACT SENTENCING TIME JUST ANNOUNCED:
Here it comes: 1,043 days credit...SHE WILL BE RELEASED: ON JULY 13TH, 2011 ~ today is July 7th...so only 6 DAYS!!!

Here is what I think:
She is given only 6 days sentence left to serve...and I think that they did that right now
to keep her safe AND to let her out soon so she can sign book deals, movie deals, etc. so
that when she goes back to court on August 25th, 2011, she will be sued for court charges
and investigation charges caused by her lying to police...she may have enough money by then and
then the court can attach that money! The fees could be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars
that she will have to pay in this next law suit against her!


HUGS
tarotlyn

Minderwiz said:

Thanks for the update!
...I know she cannot be tried again on the same charges but I still find it odd that charges were not added to cover her defence. She claimed that Caylee died accidentally in the swimming pool and that she panicked and hid the body.

Now over here that could well have led to charges of neglect - leaving a two year old unsupervised around a swimming pool - charges of allowing her death - no supervision = no rescue once she fell in - and charges of unlawful burial, failing to notify a death and no doubt possibly more charges. None of those charges would allege actions which directly led to her death Is there any prospect that such charges could be brought?...

Click to expand...

...an afterthought: Oh, forgot to mention, that over here, the defense does not have to prove anything.
The prosecution is the one that has to prove guilt. Casey's defense just threw that out there
(the drowning in the pool idea), but they did not have to prove that, they could say anything
they wanted to and not have to prove it. It is left totally up to the jury to decide what they believe.

tarotlyn

tarotlyn said:

...an afterthought: Oh, forgot to mention, that over here, the defense does not have to prove anything.
The prosecution is the one that has to prove guilt. Casey's defense just threw that out there
(the drowning in the pool idea), but they did not have to prove that, they could say anything
they wanted to and not have to prove it. It is left totally up to the jury to decide what they believe.

tarotlyn

Click to expand...