Posted on 07/17/2011 1:14:20 PM PDT by Anti-Hillary
For those of you who think this verdict was just, please read and also take into account the "nutty" comments mades by the jurors after the fact...
If I was going to write a book on these jurors, I’d entitle it “11 Airheads and a Plant”.
Excellent. Just finding it a little off PSYCHOLOGY TODAY’s usual schtick. But what’s no-so-obvious?
She could have been filmed in the act and given a confession in court and the jury could have found her innocent if they chose to do so.
It ain’t pretty but its a simple fact.
But of course, we are still a Nation of Laws.
Yup. Jury nullification. This verdict was a “ mom’s just wanna have fun” decision.
The lesson from this trial is that juries can overlook the media hyped public opinion polls and still reach a verdict on the evidence, or lack thereof.
The few jurors that spoke out AFTER (one with his back to the camera with Greta—the rest in hiding) were oblivious to the fact that they were mega-airheads. Every word they uttered was proof-positive that they screwed-up bigtime.
Greta could barely disguise her disgust listening to the simpleton jury foreman. They were nonchalant about a mother who failed to report her daughter missing for 31 days. Nonchalant that Casey was out partying and getting tattooed while her child was missing. No decent mother acts like that.
No proof connecting Casey to the crime, they said. Balderdash. The little girl did not do this to herself.
The prosecution had plenty of evidence: (1) a dead little girl (2) duct tape on her face (3) ditched not far from the Anthony house. There was more than enough evidence for conviction.
The jurors KNEW Casey was a liar and convicted her on four counts of lying. That meant everything she said was in dispute.....not just the four times.....not just the nanny lie.
Casey is not a nice person. We now we learn more about Casey...that she committed bank fraud.....and God knows what else.
I know in my gut that she’s guilty but its a bad side effect of the best possible option. In at least one case a jury found Jack Kevorkian innocent despite the fact that he readily admitted guilt.
During the civil rights era, juries were refusing to convict obviously guilty men. In all their wisdom the feds used those as a means of convincing Americans to allow them to create a new class of crime and retry those men in federal courts in venues where convictions were likely.
Here we are 50 years later with a growing list of hate crime laws.
Our justice system is a wreck.
In other words, they had the IQs of dry ice.
Ever hear an LEO say “We need less funding, weaker laws, and nicer judges?” No, be they from Los Angeles to Moscow, police invariably say that they need “more money, stiffer laws, and tougher judges.” For this is their point of view.
But if you are on the other side of the fence, public and private defenders, a very different viewpoint emerges.
Police who form opinions as quick as anyone else, then become emotionally invested in them, especially if they are wrong. Officers who lack objectivity, see only what they want to see with scant evidence, and who have learned to use “pat” testimony in court, even though untrue, to help a conviction they think is warranted.
They can also point to huge differences among prosecutors. Some who lead grand juries around by the nose to indict whoever they want. Some who will railroad an accused person over something petty, while another will just blow it off as nothing. And how in many cases, prosecutors are replaced, sometimes more than once, changing the rules of the trial before it has even begun.
They also see that “expert witnesses” for both sides are often as not just “hired guns”, who will testify to whatever they are paid to testify.
And both prosecutor and defense counsel very actively try to load the jury with people of low intelligence, more impressed with emotional argument than facts. It has been proven that juries will acquit guilty people who are attractive, and convict ugly people who are clearly innocent.
And a jury can turn on a dime because of a unintentional facial expression by the defendant. Which is why many defense counsels arrange for defendants to be given tranquilizers before the trial, so they just sit there with a blank, but attentive expression on their face.
On top of it all, judges can be utterly predictable or unpredictable. In practice, they are much like referees, and you know how often fans who can see exactly the same play truly believe the referee messed up.
The bottom line is that even if everyone plays by the rules, and are fair and objective, it is often very hard to convict someone of a crime, because there is just nowhere near the amount of evidence that is needed for a reasonable conviction. And no matter what perspective you use, if a conviction happens in such cases, it is only because something or things went very wrong. Even if the person is as guilty as sin, unless things went by the rules, injustice has happened.
Justice is found in the process, not the result.
for later
The prosecution proved that Casey Anthony was a bad mother and a whore, but that doens’t prove that she’s a murderess. Perhaps the prosecution spent too much time proving Casey’s bad character and not enough connecting the dots. They claimed that she killed her daughter so that she could be a party girl. But she was already partying it up while Caylee was still alive, she didn’t have to commit murder to do that. The worst thing that could happen would be to convict a person of a crime he or she didn’t commit, even if the defendant is scum.
But who is the murderer? What evidence was there that showed WHO the murderer is?
I do believe Casey is probably guilty, BUT we are a nation of laws and you can’t find someone guilty of murder just because you think they did it. It has to be proven and the prosecution could not do that.
She would have been better off to cry for the tv cameras a la Susan Smith so no one would suspect her.
That strategy didn’t work very well for Susan Smith.
These people had listened to all the perverted shit "evidence" for weeks....cooped up with each other...probably getting more annoyed by the day, and some even coming to hate some of their "fellow jurors"
...all they wanted to do was go home.
If you listened to the "foreman" he admitted that he was getting concerned about the welfare of his dogs.
So....in order to avoid having to go thru the "evidence" again, and to get away from each other....it was determined that the easiest way to do this was simply let Casey go...
...and that's what they did.
“But who is the murderer? What evidence was there that showed WHO the murderer is?”
A little tired of hearing this........who was responsible for the life and safety of any two year old child? Who spent months covering up the child’s whereabouts? Who created a ficticious scenario as to the kidnapper? Who did not report the child missing? The same person who double bagged her and left her body in a swamp.
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.