Posted on 07/05/2011 9:31:40 PM PDT by orwell2112
OS ANGELES – Legal experts and scientists were quick to issue a verdict of their own following the shocking “not guilty” decision announced today in the Casey “Tot Mom” Anthony trial: the 12 jurors who were assigned to the OJ “The Juice” Simpson case are no longer the 12 dumbest people on the planet.
The Juice, a former NFL star running back and master knife wielder, was found not guilty in the “trial of the century” in 1995 despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary.
“But at least they had an excuse, an ulterior motive, for liberating The Juice,” explains Dr. Timothy Miser, a law professor, psychiatrist and talk-show host with the Buckhead Community College in Atlanta.
(Excerpt) Read more at wineandexcrement.com ...
“The defense created doubt about the mother’s actual connection to Caylee’s death.....there was no cause of death, DNA, etc......”
“They did have a mountain of Casey’s lies....which pointed to guilt.”
You are confusing “doubt” with “reasonable doubt”...
Marcia Clark:
“By confusing reasonable doubt with a reason to doubt. Some believe that thinking was in play in the Simpson case. After the verdict was read in the Simpson case, as the jury was leaving, one of them, I was later told, said: “We think he probably did it. We just didn’t think they proved it beyond a reasonable doubt.” In every case, a defense attorney will do his or her best to give the jury a reason to doubt. “Some other dude did it,” or “some other dude threatened him.” But those reasons don’t necessarily equate with a reasonable doubt. A reason does not equal reasonable. Sometimes, that distinction can get lost.”
” Durst lived happily ever after-—his rich family bought out his share in the Durst real estate empire for about $50 million (the family was scared stiff of this deranged murderer and wanted to get rid of him). “
smart move ;-)
The jury had the ability to convict on murder 2 and man slaughter. They didn’t.
No one makes an accident look like a murder. That makes no sense. People try to make murders look like accidents.
The prosecution waited three years to bring this case to trial. How much longer should they have waited?
The jury was wrong.
I think the real problem in this case is that victim didn’t have anyone on her side who seeked justice. No one related to the victim want to see her murderer pay for the crime.
I'm pretty sure, in the jury room, that seed of doubt was magnified over and over again.
Certainly, to unpracticed laymen asked to decide life or death issues----"reasonable doubt" is one of the most ambiguous terms in the legal system.
Keep in mind, that to tolerant liberals, the greatest sin is "judging" others----even for the most heinous crimes.
=====================================
The “moral relativity” atrocity surfaced about 25 years ago-----promulgated by the NEA, Planned Parenthood, and the rest of the Me-First types.
Shockingly, Hefner's infamous Playboy Philosophy has actually been written into US law.
These sap-happy relativists fervently believe that one is free to do “whatever one feels is right for them.” They refuse to acknowledge that there are consequences for one‘s actions. They gamely allow moral-absolutist views just as long as those views are not imposed on them.
But the moral relativity game is full of contradictions……one of which is relativists' insistence on imposing moral relativity on others…..especially upon the malleable minds of youngsters (without parental knowledge or consent).
The relativists set-up a standard of behavior which they insist others follow, thereby violating the very thing they self-righteously defend. “Tolerance” is the singular cardinal virtue of the relativists, the One And Only absolute they tolerate. Ergo, intolerance is the only evil they recognize.
Dogmatic belief—especially a belief in absolute truth—is viewed by relativists as dreaded “intolerance"..........the ultimate sin.
In the last analysis, accountability is what relativists are really rejecting when they reject absolute truth. Those who cling to the relativity view simply do not want to be accountable for their actions. If they are expected to acknowledge absolute truth, then they have to accept absolute standards of right and wrong, and that all of us are accountable to those standards.
We need to get back to the notion that there ARE consequences for one's behavior.
After almost 40 years working as a court reporter/stenographer in the military justice system, I have always felt that the instruction given to military panel members on reasonable doubt was excellent. When my mother was picked for civilian jury duty, before she actually served in a trial, she called me and asked me what I thought "reasonable doubt" meant. I read the "reasonable doubt" instruction from the Military Judges' Benchbook verbatim ...
"By "reasonable doubt" is intended not a fanciful or ingenious doubt or conjecture, but an honest, conscientious doubt suggested by the material evidence or lack of it in the case. It is an honest misgiving generated by insufficiency of proof of guilt. "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" means proof to an evidentiary certainty, although not necessarily to an absolute or mathematical certainty. The proof must be such as to exclude not every hypothesis or possibility of innocence, but every fair and rational hypothesis except that of guilt. The rule as to reasonable doubt extends to every element of the offenses, although each particular fact advanced by the prosecution, which does not amount to an element, need not be established beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if, on the whole evidence, you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the truth of each and every element, then you should find the accused guilty."
I have also always felt that the circumstantial evidence instruction was very illuminating and read that to her as well ...
"Evidence may be direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence is evidence which tends directly to prove or disprove a fact in issue. If a fact in issue was whether it rained during the evening, testimony by a witness that he or she saw it rain would be direct evidence that it rained. On the other hand, circumstantial evidence is evidence which tends to prove some other fact from which, either alone or together with some other facts or circumstances, you may reasonably infer the existence or nonexistence of a fact in issue. If there was evidence that the street was wet in the morning, that would be circumstantial evidence from which might reasonably infer that it rained during the night in the absence of any intervening circumstance or fact. There is no general rule for determining or comparing the weight to be given to direct or circumstantial evidence. You should give all the evidence the weight and value you believe it deserves."
All the defense had to do was plant a nanosecond of doubt in the jury’s mind to get an innocent verdict-—which they did successfully.
I’m pretty sure, in the jury room, that seed of doubt was magnified over and over again.
Certainly, to unpracticed laymen asked to decide life or death issues——”reasonable doubt” is one of the most ambiguous terms in the legal system.
Reasonable doubt is not a nanosecond of doubt. Caylee drowning accidently with ductape over her mouth and then the father placing the body in a swamp to make it look like murder is not reasonable doubt. Then the the family went on national news blaming the missing child on a kidnapping nanny. That is ridiculous and perposterous doubt.
The real problem that I see with this case is that Caylee had know one related to her that wanted to see justice. Not her mother, not her uncle and not the grandparents. None of them helped police or the prosecutor. A prosecutor needs more than just physical evidence.
Makes sense to me-—but the Anthony jury was obviously not prone to sorting out convoluted analyses about doubt, circumstantial and actual evidence, difference between murder, manslaughter, etc.
A “rush to judgment” seems to be the only conclusion one can draw-——after only 11 hours of jury deliberation.
The jury was blindly wrong-——ignoring all of the physical evidence in favor of setting free “the happy single mom.”
The defense videos of Caylee and Casey having fun together seem to have resonated. That made it very hard to conceive that a happy mother would kill her playful child.
That's the norm - they never tell - it needs to be changed. If a person has killed before it IS important information.
Didn’t you say we need the person who killed Caylee?
We found the killer they just didn’t convict her!
NOW they are one of the 24 dumbest people on earth.
That was not proved it was a maybe event.
Agree They did have a mountain of Casey’s lies.
Maybe the DA learned how to handle the next case,one must tip toe when dealing with the law.
Did watch the trial but the had no proof of guilt only a lot what if’s,no sane person sends someone to death row on a lot maybe answers.
Name one point on the trial where the DA had proof of murder.Why do you think she got off?.
She had motive, means and opportunity. I will not go over the entire trial with you. If you didn’t watch it closely then you have no clue. They jury was just lazy and intelectually challenged. There is no other expaination. If this had happend in the 1960’s there would hve been a conviction. However we now live in a dumbed down society that wants to be spoon fed.
Wrongo ace, the jury could have convicted her of manslaughter and didn't.
What R U talking about?
Yikes. Sorry about the brain damage. Was the accident traumatic? Can you still function in society?
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.