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.
That is the reason Capitol Cases should not be tried on TV. The most serious of offenses and most serious of trials we have in this nation have been turned into a Freak Show Circus. Courts have become media focused and not truth and justice focused.
Ditto. A wise individual you are.
“Your unwillingness to declare community with a jury that delivered a verdict based entirely on the facts presented...”
Maybe because we’re not so gullible as to believe that the jury was as rational as you claim they are?
“But, the jury’s verdict needs to be respected, opinion not withstanding.”
Just as we respect the lawfully elected and constitutionally authorized President of the United States.
I understood the jury was sequestered to prevent them from knowing what was happening outside of the courtroom.
Doesn't that make the mob influence rather moot?
You should have seen FR back in the Elian Gonzalez days. Then there was Terri Schiavo. It happens from time to time. People get all emotionally wrapped up in things that in reality are not their business. I imagine people just don’t have enough to do. As for me, sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.
When you get one, you should.
“When you get one, you should.”
Not if they are wrong.
With your, obviously, vast understanding of the exhibits offered during the trial and the structure of the prosecution's case, pray tell what factual evidence did they omit from their deliberation? The forensics were weak, the theory presented of the crime was weak. No clear connection was established that offered any definitive culpability supporting the charges. The DA rushed to trial with a weak case.
The prosecution relied on attacking the character of the defendant. Is she a model citizen? Why heck no, but personal opinion of the defendant should not weigh in a jury's deliberation. Let's take it from the other direction: should a personal attack against an accuser in a rape trial alleging promiscuity and seductive behavior weigh in favor of the defendant as justification?
The lack of objectivity in most people is becoming palpable.
Murdering a defenseless quadriplegic who can't communicate by starvation and dehydration is EVERYONE business. It's murder Damnit!!!! I don't give a tinker D what PC name you wish too call it. It makes it everyones business when you realize you or your family may be next because some lawyer and judge says so. A society lacking morality is one doomed to fall.
That is one evil of the day no one best ever try such on mine and I say it as a caregiver to a quad. There was miles of difference between that case and taking someone brain dead off life support meaning heart lung machine. Some evils of the day need to be stood up too.
I believe there was adequate evidence presented to indicate this person was indeed irresponsible. That does not pass my hiring requirements for a babysitter.
That does not make her guilty of first degree murder, either.
The State, in the eyes of the jury, lacked sufficient evidence to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Period. The jury has spoken.
Charles Manson, Nuremburg, and OJ Simpson are irrelevant to this case.
OJ's acquittal was done in the face of far tighter physical evidence, and the fact that the prosecutor failed to make the point that leather shrinks when it has been wet, even with blood.
There just might have been some jury nullification going on there, too, absolving OJ because of other factors, partly the villification of Mark Fuhrman, who proved his worth as a detective solving the Martha Moxley case, again, with sufficient evidence to eliminate all reasonable possibilities otherwise, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Keep in mind that that "reasonable doubt" consistsof the ability to present an alternative and credible scenario. Accidental death is not murder in the first degree, and that reasonable doubt was well set in the mind of the jury. Inappropriate actions afterwards might point to the very real possibility of prior foul play, but in the absence of proving that such foul play not only occurred, but was unaccountable except by the actions of the accused, the State failed to make its case.
The presumption of innocence applies.
However, I have been known not to hire babysitters based on a 'vibe', if you will, and need not adhere to the 'reasonable doubt standard' when hiring someone to watch over my kids, which is rare with the profusion of relatives around.
There was chloroform in the car. The trunk smelled like human composition. Don’t tell me you believe she was drowned in a pool.
Human decomposition. I really wish I can edit these posts...
The chloroform can be explained as a way for Casey to knock out Calee, so Casey can party, without it being murder.
The human composition can be attributed to Calee decomposing, as a result of Casey over dosing Calee and accidentally killing her without it being deliberate.
Yes, she should have been founf guilty of something for these two, but it doesn’t necessarily add up to the deliberate killing of another human being.
Chloroform is a trihalomethane and can result from a multitude of solvents and refrigerants, primarily. A positive indication of the compound is far from conclusive as to the source, in the absence of substantial evidence linking an individual to the compound exclusively.
The trunk smelling like human composition was an observation made by an individual with no background in medicine, forensics, or microbiology. No trace evidence of human remains were located in the trunk, which would absolutely be present if a body made it to the state of decomposition. This woman would not have had the ability nor intelligence to conceal trace evidence on an irregular surface such as an auto trunk.
I believe that we have yet to be presented with what actually occurred to this little girl. With that being the case, how could I objectively vote to convict in a capital case? The demeanor and lack of morality of the defendant is not evidence.
But you do make a point.
They did their job, and if unaware of the mob, then that simply made ignoring the mob easier. How often, not just in this but in political and sporting venues, we see people caught up in the frenzy of the moment--and the decisions they make, the support they render, based on feelings--'swept up in the crowd', may well be greatly flawed.
Sure there were shills, but I think that is what got duhwon elected.
Thank God justice isn't meted by a shout-down voice vote.
True, but most all of them will stampede...
On its own, it is the nature of circumstantial evidence for more than one explanation to still be possible. Inference from one piece of circumstantial evidence may not guarantee accuracy. Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a collection, so that the pieces then become corroborating evidence. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more valid as proof of a fact when the alternative explanations have been ruled out.
However, in logic, validity bespeaks nothing concerning the actual truth value of the premises. For a conclusion to be valid, it can not be false given the particular premise from which the inferance demands such conclusion necessarily follows and given the premise the conclusion can NOT be false. However, a conclusion can only be sound if the conclusion is valid and the premises are indeed actually true.
Shall the death penalty, or murder conviction be delivered on valid conclusions, or is the bar necessarily high that conclusions must indeed be sound? That is the nature of reasonable doubt.
Circumstantial evidence allows a trier of fact to deduce a fact exists. In criminal law, the inference is made by the trier of facts in order to support the truth of assertion (of guilt or absence of guilt). The fact to be assumed may be so undeniably true so as to be true without actually having to prove the truth value.
When a judge takes judicial notice of a fact in a criminal case, e.g., that the defendant could not have boarded a train in New York and exited in Texas without somehow crossing state lines - he will tell the jury they "may" accept that fact as proven without further evidence. But he may not tell them that they are required to do so, or take the factual question away from them, no matter how obvious the fact might seem (cf. Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Evid. 201(g)). Even where the defendant and his attorney enter into a formal stipulation admitting an element of the offense, the jury should be told merely that they may regard the matter to be "proved," if they wish, but the judge still cannot direct a verdict on that factual issue or take it away from the jury over the defendant's objection (United States v. Muse, 83 F.3d 672, 679-80; 4th Cir. 1996).
Finally, the jury's power is considered sacrosanct by our abiding "judicial distaste" for special verdicts or interrogatories to the jury in criminal cases (United States v. Oliver North, 910 F.2d 843, 910-11; D.C. Cir. 1990). Unlike in civil cases, where such devices are routinely employed, in criminal cases it has frequently been held to be error to ask a jury to return anything but a general verdict of guilty or not guilty (United States v. McCracken, 488 F.2d 406, 418-419; 5th Cir. 1974 - collecting cases). This rule is designed to safeguard the jury's power "to arrive at a general verdict without having to support it by reasons or by a report of its deliberations," and to protect its historic power to nullify or temper rules of law based on the jurors' sense of justice as conscience of the community (Id.; United States v. Spock, 416 F.2d 165, 181-82; 1st Cir. 1969). The jury is given "a general veto power, and this power should not be attenuated by requiring the jury to answer in writing a detailed list of questions or explain its reasons." (United States v. Wilson, 629 F.2d 439, 443; 6th Cir. 1980). Although the issue is far from settled, a powerful argument can be made that this rule "is of constitutional dimensions," and a direct corollary of the Sixth Amendment's protection of the jury's power to nullify (Wayne LaFave v Jerold Israel, Criminal Procedure § 24.7(a); 2d ed. 1992).
>>Thank G-d she DID skip out of Jury duty and I repeat: HOORAY FOR THE ACTUAL JURY! <<
You are one sick puppy.
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.