Posted on 07/05/2011 5:49:45 PM PDT by MindBender26
Please do not blame Orlando for the Casey Anthony verdict. Had locals been given a choice, she would convicted overwhelmingly! But we did not get to supply the jurors. They were from Pinellas County, 100 miles and 100 years west of Central Florida. Pinellas County is mostly low class retirees in St. Petersburg, knuckle-dragging cretins in Pinellas Park and the denizens of Scientology World Headquarters in Clearwater. The average IQ in Highpoint and Safety Harbor is less than the air temperature on ays when we wory about the citrus crop freezing.
I grew up there, escaped, and recognize there are a few intelligent people there such as Pinellas County FReepers, (but not former governor Charlie Crist from St. Pete. BTW, Crist, the Gay Blade, has now joined the biggest ambulance chasing firm in the State, and his show “wife” hasn’t been seen with him in years.)
So please, when you think about the all-but-convicted murderess going free here, don’t blame us. BTW, I know Judge Perry well, and he is a VERY good guy. Don’t blame him or us for the jury’s idiocy.
I am never selected for jury duty. I am articulate and can reason. The jurist who kept saying ‘what’ and ‘i don’t understand’ where the ones selecte P. S when I looked for Caylee every sq inch of woods was filled with muck and water. Only dry land was searched.
Nice.
I agree with that too. Jurors should be serious and fully-informed.
” Ya gotta prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt to convict....the prosecutor obviously failed to do so. “
Not necessarily. This jury followed only what they could understand and identify with, given their low IQ of 2. They prefered the fruit salad Casey-defense that it’s always every one’s fault but Casey’s. This jury was entirely closed to the prosecution, and I believe predisposed to the low class popcorn soap opera of the Anthony family dysfunction over the science and the circumstantial evidence. The prosecution nailed all the elements but lacked video of the murder, the dumping of the body which this jury required. They presented it superbly, but it was over the head of jurors who don’t know “come here” from “sick ‘em “. (In my humble opinion.) :)
Well, although acting like a foolish mob is not healthy and it is childish, this is how humans and Freepers are at times.
“I agree with that too. Jurors should be serious and fully-informed.”
But they usually aren’t. A verdict from an uninformed jury is not justice and is not what the Constitution means by an impartial jury.
Funny you should mention that.
I'm defending the jury doing it's sword duty to return a verdict of "not guilty" if the prosecution fails to prove its case "beyond a reasonable doubt".
I do not think the prosecution proved its case to that standard, and thus the jurors did what they had sworn to do.
What part of that, exactly, if any, do you have a problem with?
Keep in mind that what I personally may harbor as an opinion of Ms Anthony or what I believe her actions and responsibilities to be in the instance of the child's death have nothing to do with the verdict the jury delivered.
I know our whole family would be out scouring the hills and towns looking for one of our own who went missing, or from whom no one had heard for 24 hours, but that is how we are.
People believe all sorts of stuff, but the standard is one of proof, "beyond a reasonable doubt". In the instance the Prosecution did not prove that Ms Anthony killed her child with malice and forethought (a tough standard with credible witnesses and tight physical evidence) such that no alternative scenario exists, the jury found correctly.
The founders embraced a system of justice which might occcasionally let a guilty party off (believing they would eventually have to deal with God) rather than hang the innocent. To lower that standard is to tamper with judicial standards which, when properly applied, make our justice system uniquely just.
Unfortunately, sometimes those standards are not properly applied, but that is another topic.
Insofar as hiring the former perp as a babysitter, no.
But there are a lot of people I would not hire as a babysitter, and as far as I know, none of them have been found guilty of murder, either.
Greta is interviewing an alternate juror right now...very enlightening—and disturbing. He agrees wholeheartedly with the verdict; Caylee died in some sort of “horrible accident” (despite the lack of evidence).
As for those three pieces of duct tape found on the child’s skull, the jury apparently bought Jose Baez’s story that it was similar to how the family buried their pets (Hmmm...don’t recall testimony that George Anthony put tape over the mouths of their deceased dogs).
And here’s the clincher: the alternate said he didn’t see Casey’s non-stop partying lifestyle (while Caylee was missing) as suspicious behavior, or an indication that she had murdered her daughter.
It’s painfully clear this jury was in over its head from Day One.
If guilty, I have full faith that they ultimately will face a higher Judge.
Or would you do away with "Innocent until proven guilty" or the standard of "reasonable doubt"?
If so, you are more of a threat to people far and wide in this country than some chick who has been found not guilty of murdering her child.
What is this, lynch mob night?
Since the perp (former) is innocent then why not hire her as a babysitter. I would, as a believer of the perfect system that you so enthusiastically describe, in a cliche after cliche, as if we haven’t heard them before a thousand times. The Founders, oh, yes, they’d be hi-fiving today. A perfect application of their principles. If we had only applied them at Nuremberg or to Charles Manson. Better let O.J. Simpson free and committing other crimes, than to convict him on the chance that the gloves did fit at the time of the crime! Yawn!
I agree with that, but to a lesser extent. That is, most individual trials do a fairly good job of upholding justice, but as you suggest the process is flawed and in some trials the outcome is hideous because of the system flaws.
We are entitled to a speedy trial by our fully-informed peers and the right to confront each witness against us, and the right to mount a vigorous and unconstrained defense. Exemplars of the Jury trial process are found in American and British history, yet in our time very few know of them.
Modern trial process expects little of a Jury and overly constrains them in judgement, over constrains the defense lawyers, over filters evidence and testimony. Trial juries become passive rubber-stamps. They fulfill the utterly low expectations the process enforces upon them.
But in this case? The standard of “beyond reasonable doubt” could never have been met in the best of jury and process.
Who, among our upright and moral FReepers would want to be the one to carve those words to mark the grave of one they provided the rope for in a frenzy?
Justice is best conducted in a dispassionate atmosphere, in the absence of clouding emotions, and with faith that ultimately, if the guilty go free now, they will still have to answer for their actions later.
A frenzied mob is seldom a just instrument, and though its actions may seem right at the time, the individuals who participated often lived a lifetime of regret.
Every crowd is a tinder-dry mob, waiting for a spark, even online.
There’s plenty of circumstantial evidence. There is no such thing as absolute proof in the mathematical sense so you will always have to go with what is most likely.
How about we all pack heat and drop perps drt in their tracks!
"An armed society is a polite society."Robert A. Heinlein — Beyond This Horizon (1942)
Trails now days last months when they used to last at the most a few days. Some of it is TV and media driven. Lawyers want their names and faces out there. Another thing is sequestering juries. That should end but so should TV Court. IF Judges stopped trying to limit what information the jury hear in court rooms then sequestering would not be needed. Shut off the cameras, knock off the egos and lawyer theatrics, and hold a court of law.
I'm all for it.
It would save us a lot of time and money.
Not necessarily. Consider the Tea Party rallies, or the Marches for Life, or most religious assemblies, or classical, folk or soft-pop concerts. Some crowds behave well.
But this crowd here today on FR, by that measure -- downright scary.
Your unwillingness to declare community with a jury that delivered a verdict based entirely on the facts presented (or not presented) is laughable. I would proudly declare them to be my neighbors, as they exemplify what works with our judicial system.
Now, go back and watch Nancy Grace - she needs the viewers.
I know technically it’s not a mistrial for a verdict was rendered and there were no legal errors from the defense, prosecution or judge.
I just meant that, unless the prosecution was going for broke, in terms of first degree or nothing, the jury should have been able to find her guilty of something more than just lying to cops. For example, the body was moved, that is tampering with evidence and messing around with a dead body. Those are indictable offenses.
But, the jury’s verdict needs to be respected, opinion not withstanding.
The U.S. Flag Code, section 4-(d) states: "The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery. It should never be festooned, drawn back, nor up, in folds, but always allowed to fall free. "
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.