Posted on 07/13/2011 7:10:03 AM PDT by MindBender26
The volunteers have no case what so ever. The Zanuti lady MAY have a case, but has limited damages.
Either way, they could only secure a portion of her future wages. As it stands she has no assets and is destitute.
I am sorry if I made you mad. It was never my intention.
Please, Explain it to me as you would a child. As I have more than explained why you are wrong based upon what you wrote.
I also have explained that the jury DID their job. You may not agree with the outcome, but that is irrelevant as you where not a member of the jury and not privileged to the deliberations.
Disparaging the jury only shows your lack of understanding of the law and the court procedures.
I would hope that you would believe it, it is an indisputable fact. The jury was a random sample of registered voters who had the misfortune of being pressed into service.
I would hope that in the event that you are accused of a crime, a jury can be found that could impartially sit in judgment of the evidence against you and dispassionately render a decision based on the facts and not their emotions and biases.
That there is a real legitimate other side.
Btw, I guess my 12 years in legal litigation count for nothing.
I wish them luck, I however find their task difficult.
They may be judged to have standing, they may have a court hearing. They may even get a judgment. However,the likelihood of collecting on the judgment is slim to non.
It is unfortunate since it is likely that she is at leastcomplicite in her child's death, if not solely responsible for killing her. But that is life. That is the legal system.
I looked into the eyes of Lawson Lamar, the States Attorney, and the sheriff as they spoke.
They are both political hacks and incompetent boobs. They would both be better off to pretend they never heard the name "Casey Anthony".
You do not have to guess, I can assure you that whatever experience you have counts for nothing in this case. Your own experience should already have told you that. It should also have told you never to second guess a jury. They should be respected for their service. They are in a difficult position.
And you would be wrong.
If you don't like our opinions, go somewhere else.....no one is forcing you to post!
It is your opinion that jury did their job correctly. The only fact is that they did come to a decision, not that they did it as effectively as is required or came to the best conclusion.
I don’t get this concept some like you have here that the results of a jury are unimpeachable and can’t be criticized. This is the same as saying an elected politician cannot be criticized for their actions in office simply because the people elected them to that position. Seems counter-intuitive with the purpose of freerepublic, to be honest...that we can’t be critical of the outcome of a legal or political events. Strange.
If you where truly an officer of the court you would be in complete agreement with me.
The prosecutor believes that she did it, yet he is duty bound NOT to disparage the jury and he has not. Of course he disagrees with them, however he would never call them stupid. Heck, he helped to seat them.
You are sa fool and every utterance that dribbles from your drooling pie hole only goes to further prove that fact.
The jury was sequestered. Thy where wholly engaged in the process. Why do you consider yourself more informed of the relevant information than them?
The fault lies squarely with the prosecution. This shouldn't even have bean a death penalty case. There was absolutely no evidence that there was premeditation. There was no evidence that there was malice of fore thought, both of which are required for a death penalty conviction of First Degree Murder.
The prosecutor over reached and over charged the defendant. He should have indicted on manslaughter, lying to authorities and obstruction of justice, This the result of the lying.
That being said. A manslaughter conviction would have been difficult enough due to the fact that they could not establish a cause of death with any certainty.
Whether anything comes of this or not, worth discussing if only to give Anthony some sleepless nights.
You are one angry person.
Jury duty sucks. That is why everybody wants to get out of it. It is boring, monotonous and mind numbing process. It is also one that caries a great deal of anxiety because they are taxed with a very serious duty.
You didn't sit on the jury. You didn't engage in deliberations. You watched the case at home ab=nd was tainted by analysts and court procedures not privy to the jury.
As for doing there job correctly, the fact that they where able to come to a decision on all counts is enough to prove they properly did their job. Coming to a consensus is their job.
You are attacking the jury. Question their motives and intelligence and generally being an idiot.
You accuse with venom, I coolly smack your arguments down. It isn't difficult, your arguments are silly and unintelligent. You accuse me of being illiterate so I illuminate your stupidity. It isn't difficult. It is right there an the screen. You confuse your prejudice with facts. You believe conjecture is proof. Like I said, I am not angry, I love a good argument. What anger I have is not for you, the system or even the defendant. I reserve my anger for things that effect me directly. This case and your opinion of it do not.
Thanks MindBender26.
Because you are.
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.