Posted on 07/10/2011 8:46:37 AM PDT by Kaslin
Thank you.
There are a number of ways to go negative on this verdict, and I liked you take on it.
Two Jurors made it clear during the selection phase that they did not believe they should judge other people. That this should be left to God. So therefore two had already determined, before the trial even started or the doors closed for dileration, that they would not be voting guilty.
MAkes you wonder how they determine who they pick as friends... or marriage partners...or who their kids acquaint themselves with, if they make no judgements of other people.
Well they sure didn't question any of it...zip zero was questioned or asked to be seen while in diliberation..and there was over 300 pieces of it. That in itself is stunning!
I don’t see how the jury is not supposed to discuss the case, especially a sequestered jury. There they are basically locked up with each other with the news made available to them heavily censored, what exactly do they have available to discuss?
All that is great for showing she clearly did something wrong. But it doesn’t prove a premeditated deliberate act of murder.
All the effort I’ve seen to trash anybody the target is the jury, not the TV audience that disagrees with them. There’s nothing trashing in that sentence you keep quoting. It doesn’t say anything bad about anybody, it’s just pointing out that the TV audience and the jury have 2 different sets of information. The other category presented is the jury. It’s a simple comparison and contrast sentence, there’s the TV audience and the jury, and then it lists the information the TV audience has which was specifically forbidden the jury.
Sorry but it’s all in your head. There’s not a word in that sentence that says only simpletons wouldn’t agree with the verdict. You’re just plain being paranoid on that front, inserting something that’s not there.
She was acquitted of all the charges that had her directly and deliberately harming the kid. Because there wasn’t evidence of that the things that happened to the kid were done BY her. That was the big problem with the case. There’s lots of evidence that somebody did bad things to the kid, there’s lots of evidence that Casey hid evidence, which is good for an inference that she’s probably the one who did the bad things. But “inference” and “probably” are not the kind of words that rise beyond a reasonable doubt.
The problem is you’re looking at a difference set of information. The jury didn’t get all the stuff the judge kept out, it didn’t get all the guessing by legal “experts”. 90% of the stuff you’ve read about the trial they didn’t hear. But what they DID get to hear was a prosecuting attorney admit they didn’t now how she died, when she died, and imply they were really sure who killed her other than it being somebody in the house.
Thanks for the response.
Why post that descriptive sentence in the article if not to frame the people who disagree with the verdict and the jury?
What would be the point of placing that information up front, if not to influence people with the content?
It was unnecessary if not to frame the dissenters in some manner. You can’t possibly think those comments were flattering to the public who disagreed.
I know you’re convinced I’m being paranoid, but by dismissing any insult there, you’re saying that was placed in the article for no reason whatsoever.
Wordsmiths don’t do that.
Yes I know. You don't know what it could have possibly been that she might have done wrong.
I support you in that belief. I don't agree with it, but I do believe that is your take on it.
It's not my take on it.
I didn’t say they ignored evidence. I said they did not request any of the 300 pieces of evidence while in diliberation...which to me was stunning.
Because it’s actually useful stuff to keep in mind. There’s a lot of folks saying the jury must be idiots to acquit, but those folks saying that have a whole different pile of information to work with. It frames the situation, it points out the probable source of the large difference in opinion of the TV audience and the jury. It’s actually a valid and informative sentence. I know we’re not used to the media doing that, but it happens sometimes.
Yes, and thus that is where I see the greatest flaw in the system. How to determine a jury should be "reformed"...the sooner the better. I understand it wasn't until Tuesday about noon when those who were holding her guilty began to weaken....whatever happened to bring that about it took less then three hours after for all six to fold. Makes one wonder who was leading that charge to find Casey not guilty. There is ALWAYS a leader.
Remember there’s a large gap between belief and a jury vote. I believe Casey did it, and deliberately, but I know there isn’t proof beyond a reasonable doubt of that.
I took a few Criminal Law classes in the 70s and at that time they said lawyers needed to speak to the jury as if they all had about a 5th grade education in order to be sure they weren’t talking over their heads. Not sure if that is the case now or if the grade level has changed.
I think jury pools are too small for them to be as picky as they once were. I was supposed to testify in a criminal trial a couple of weeks ago and it was declared a mistrial because there were not enough jurors to try the case! Many do not even bother to show up, and those that do have all sorts of reasons they can’t serve. I was on jury duty a few years ago and a deputy sheriff showed up in uniform and tried to get the clerk to dismiss him so he wouldn’t have to wait around. The clerk told him being in law enforcement didn’t mean he wouldn’t be put on a jury any more so he didn’t just get excused.
They used to say jurors are those that are too dumb to get out of jury duty. If we want justice we have to be willing to do our part and many aren’t.
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.