I know there are people on this board from all over the world, but I've just got to say to the Americans that the Anthony verdict is an example of what makes this country great.
I don't admire Casey Anthony. Not in the slightest. But I admire the hell out of that jury. They had the courage to stand up in the media spotlight, in a case where the defendant had already been hanged by the media and the public, and say they still had some doubts.
The old saw goes that it would be better for ten murderers to go free than for one innocent person to have their life or liberty taken away. I couldn't agree more, or be prouder to be an American than I am today.
Boy, next time I get speeding ticket, I know which lawyer to call--------------of course his fee probably jumped about a 1000 fold in the last few hours.
talleyrand wrote:I know there are people on this board from all over the world, but I've just got to say to the Americans that the Anthony verdict is an example of what makes this country great. ....
You are correct.... America IS great. However, It doesn't matter much what the jury said. IF she's guilty, she's the one who will have to live with it.
Dan Schultz
"The Village Tinker" http://www.thevillagetinker.com" target="_blank
Current 'stable'... Rudolf Meinl 5/4, Marzan (by Willson) euph, King 2341, Alphorn, and other strange stuff.
talleyrand wrote:I know there are people on this board from all over the world, but I've just got to say to the Americans that the Anthony verdict is an example of what makes this country great. ....
You are correct.... America IS great. However, It doesn't matter much what the jury said. IF she's guilty, she's the one who will have to live with it.
I agree that if she's guilty, she's got to live with it.
But I also think it does matter, in a different sense, what the jury said. IMO, the jury said that even in a big case where the whole country has already decided the question, the prosecution still has to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. I was personally wondering whether an American jury in the current environment could still do that. Even though in my own mind I figure she probably did it, I find it immensely encouraging that they could make that decision.
Perhaps Casey will announce that she will be searching for the killer, herself(on the golf course). This would be a way she could show that she is a wonderful human being, and honor O.J., at the same time. What a country!
bloke wrote: America will see her on court TV again - sooner, rather than later. That is how "the system" works.
I don't doubt that for a minute. But I'm still very pleased with that jury, for the sake of all the people who didn't do what they're accused of sitting in jail or on death row. I think she did it. But I'm very, very glad the jury was honest about the issue of "reasonable doubt." It shows it's still possible to be an American in the 18th century sense.
the elephant wrote:I thought I read that the jury were sequestered and that lots of evidence had been disallowed by the judge. Was this not so? Was jury was allowed to watch the news and come into contact with the media hounds? Is this normal? I thought that sequestering was the norm in such a case as this. If so, the jury had no idea whatsoever what was being said in the media. If that was so then they did not "stand up" to media pressure at all. So, does anyone know for sure whether sequestering was or was not employed by this judge? Just wondering...
It is my understanding they were sequestered. For whatever that is worth. Are you suggesting they didn't watch TV before the trial started? That they didn't know what was at stake? That they were sequestered for the last two years and had no idea of the media play the trial had already gotten and would continue to get after their verdict was announced?
The media trial was over long before this jury was selected and sequestered. As one who paid some (but not much) attention to the media trial, I'm pretty sure she did it and all things considered it would have been better if the prosecution had proved their case. But I'm glad there is still such a thing as a jury who isn't afraid of saying they weren't persuaded.
bloke wrote:
I served on a jury where a couple of middle-aged guys
Never been able to do that. I've been called a hundred times, but I've got two things against me: I used to be a minister, and I've got a Ph.D. I always get struck as a result, because the last thing a lawyer wants on a jury is anyone with any ability with critical thinking. (Sometimes they unexpectedly get one such as yourself, because perhaps there are not such readily identifiable markers in place.)
But even though I always get struck, I'm glad there are still juries who will let the (probably) guilty walk for whatever reason rather than risk locking up or killing someone who didn't do it, just because it's simpler and more politically correct in our culture to assume the "heroes" in blue are always right.
No. This case was about one thing: a jury just does not want to believe a parent will kill their own child. She may be a party girl, a bitch, a lying one at that, and have everything else that could possibly go wrong do so against her. But a mother can admit all of that, and still say she did not kill her own child, and have every piece of inferential evidence possible at hand admitted, and a jury is going to acquit without someone else to look the jury straight in the eye and say he/she saw her do it.
(The prosecution also farted out big time on the rebuttal, doing nothing but slinging mud. Wrong tactic that late in the game. The only sensible approach is to rephrase the one strongest point that would reasonably indicate guilt and hammer it, not just try to discredit the defense argument.)
She was brought up on all the wrong charges. She should have been cited for felony child abuse or neglect, and had the max sentence thrown at her. The charges have no common elements that would invoke double jeopardy, but this prosecutor has shot the whole wad and can't get anything else out of her at this point. That she could have been found guilty of, not just the piddly little charges of lying to authority. Sentencing on Thursday? Ha! No one gets their sentence the same week as the trial. She's going to get time served, have some time to pay the court costs, and be done with it.
bloke wrote:
Let's face it; Millions of Americans murder their babies, and don't go to jail for it because they've paid "professionals" to do it for them. Our rulers (and I'm NOT going to get into ANY specifics here AT ALL) have done INFINITELY more to weaken the moral fiber of the Nation than one dip-**** skanky broad who did away with her innocent daughter.
bloke wrote:
gulp... I know there are police-types who play the tuba and are members of this board. I'm VERY glad that police forces (deputies, state police, etc.) are out there, and that they are willing to do this dangerous and thankless work.
That being said, a certain percentage of police forces are there due to being a certain "personality type" with which we all reluctantly became acquainted with in middle school and high school. I believe this "element" in police forces is a matter of great worry and concern (not discussed openly for obvious reasons) to the more adult-minded/responsible/carefully-measured-actions police personnel.
Oh yeah. I completely appreciate law enforcement. I just get tired of the public as well as maybe some police dept spokesmen, talking like everyone who wears a uniform to work is automatically a "hero" whose view is therefore privileged and who is somehow wronged or disrespected by acquitals. There are several things wrong with that.
She 'walks' tomorrow due to time previously served....if that is the case, the guy who 'flipped the bird' as a spectator in court and got 6 days for doing it will get the most time due to this trial...
mark
PS: And 'Dr. Drew' will have to give Nancy Grace deep breathing exercises to control her anger at 'Tot Mom' if this happens....
Last edited by bisontuba on Wed Jul 06, 2011 9:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I think the fact that this took the jury only 12 hours (or whatever) to decide shows that this was just never even close to a conviction.
I don't know what happened, and hope that the truth comes out some way or another. Otherwise it's just another sad story of a little girl whose life was cut way, way too short. I'm still waiting for someone to get convicted for Jonbenet Ramsey, but that's been what, like 15 years now...
There is one issue where I think the British have a better procedure in jury trials than we have in the U.S.A. Unless I'm mistaken, in England the first twelve names chosen sit on the jury, period. Unless there is an actual conflict-of-interest with one of the parties, or a real life-or-death conflict, the jury is set randomly. None of the games that go on in American jury selection.
Uncle Buck wrote:There is one issue where I think the British have a better procedure in jury trials than we have in the U.S.A. Unless I'm mistaken, in England the first twelve names chosen sit on the jury, period. Unless there is an actual conflict-of-interest with one of the parties, or a real life-or-death conflict, the jury is set randomly. None of the games that go on in American jury selection.
I agree. Jury duty should be mandatory except in extreme hardship situations. Putting the defendant on the stand should be mandatory, too!
Dan Schultz
"The Village Tinker" http://www.thevillagetinker.com" target="_blank
Current 'stable'... Rudolf Meinl 5/4, Marzan (by Willson) euph, King 2341, Alphorn, and other strange stuff.
