Posted on 07/05/2011 5:08:33 PM PDT by Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears
We all understand that. Imagine that! Yet, legalese cannot escape the everyday reality. Not guilty means innocent, means falsely accused, like it or not. Otherwise, you are letting a murderer out on the street to murder again, because of your allegedly separate reality of the legal system. Sorry, it cannot work that way.
Interesting dude, Robert Durst. From the Wikipedia:
Fugitive
In 1973, Durst married Kathleen McCormack, who disappeared in 1982. On December 24, 2000, Durst's long-time friend, Susan Berman, was found murdered execution-style in her Benedict Canyon California house. Durst was questioned in both cases, but not charged in either one.[1]
In 2001, Durst was arrested in Galveston, Texas, shortly after body parts of his senior neighbor, Morris Black, were found floating in Galveston Bay, but he was released on bail. Durst missed his court hearing and was declared the nation's first billion-dollar fugitive. He was caught in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, at a Wegmans Supermarket, after trying to steal a chicken sandwich and a Band-Aid, even though he had $500 cash in his pocket. A police search of his rented car yielded $37,000 in cash, two guns, marijuana, and Black's driver's license.[2]
These events inspired the 2010 film "All Good Things", the title of which is a reference to a health store of the same name set up by Durst and his wife in the 1970s.[3][4]
Trial
In 2003, Durst went on trial for the murder of Morris Black. He hired well-known defense attorney Dick DeGuerin and claimed self-defense. During cross-examination by Galveston District Attorney Kurt Sistrunk, Durst admitted to using a paring knife, two saws and an axe to dismember Black's body before dumping his remains in Galveston Bay.[5] The jury acquitted him of murder.[6]
In 2004, Durst pleaded guilty to two counts of bond jumping and one count of evidence tampering. As part of a plea bargain, he received a sentence of five years and was given credit for time served, requiring him to serve about three years in prison. [7][dead link]
Durst was paroled in 2005. The rules of his release required him to stay near his home; permission was required to travel.
Second arrest
In December 2005, Durst made an unauthorized trip to the boarding house where he killed Black and to a nearby shopping mall. At the mall, he ran into the presiding judge from his murder trial, Judge Susan Criss. Due to this incident, the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles determined that Durst had violated the terms of his parole, and he was returned to jail.[8]. However he was released again from custody on March 1, 2006 [9].
Should have gone for the gold in Olympic skating.
Just because you “accidentally” kill someone does not mean that the charges got dropped from murder to involuntary manslaughter. If you can show that the victim was killed in the commission of an inherently dangerous felony (the definition of which various from state to state) you can get convicted of felony murder. If it is determined that defendant acted with such recklessness that the defendant shows a complete indifference to human life, you can be convicted of depraved heart murder, usually a second degree offense.
The verdicts are guilty beyond any reasonable doubt
and not guilty
. There is no not guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt
. A verdict of not guilty simply means not proven. It does not mean innocent.
In Scotland, they have three verdicts: guilty, not proven, and not guilty. The latter two amount to acquittal. However, not guilty
asserts that the jury believes the defendant is truly innocent (or that the law is unjust, and they do not deign to apply it). If this trial had been in Scotland, the verdict would presumably have been not proven
.
“Not guilty means innocent, means falsely accused, like it or not.”
You are wrong.
And it’s not ‘my’ allegedly separate reality of the legal system. And it indeed does work out that way. Did you bother to check the link I provided?
Excellent points all. And, had you or I been seated on the jury, we may have indeed made a different decision.
Their actions afterward then make no sense.
She acted just like she murdered her child.
As was explained, that would still be felony murder. Killed during the act of child abuse. A reasonable person would know chloroform or locking in the trunk, not to mention duct taping, could cause death. Felony murder even if it was accidental.
Let's start with those posting on this site who are someday accused.
How do you prove “means” when you don’t know how the person was killed? How do you prove “opportunity” when you don’t know where the person was killed? How do you prove MURDER when you have no prove the death wasn’t from natural or accidental causes.
I hate this case, but you can put your emotional blubbering bs away with me. The prosecution had very little real proof that Casey Anthony was anything worse than a liar and a scumbag.
Wow, even being aquitted for child endangerment ? You are a tool!!!!!! And maybe as sick as the Anthony family. Roe v. Wade was probably a great day for justice too huh?
While you are calling people noobs, consider this: There is no NEED to prove she died in a swimming pool. The important fact is that there is no PROOF she was murdered.
Look, I agree this "mother" is a pile of pond scum, and I agree she is very likely a murdering bitch, but unfortunately there is room for doubt because there is no proof SHE did it.
So before you start throwing around names, get it straight. The burden is on the prosecution. They can't even prove the girl was MURDERED, much less who did it.
Have no fear. GOD keeps the books and He will meet out JUSTICE in His own time and His own way. The murderer will be punished.
The internet searches could not be tied to her. Many people had access to those computers.
No one but the biological father (whoever he is) has the standing to sue her for wrongful death. The grandparents really don’t have standing. And if they did they can’t prove a great deal of damages.
Thank you.
She didn’t “admit anything under oath” because she didn’t testify. Her attorneys put her defense out, she didn’t.
I don't think it took much to confuse this jury, when you read the background on each one and thier statements when questioned. You'd think there would be certain qualifications for one to be even considered to serve which would eliminate those with criminal records, as an example. More than one seems to have had their own problems with the law.
The family was on self-destruct long before this trial. It couldn’t be any other way with Casey as a member and living there. George had already walked away before this and nobody would blame him for doing so now. I’d actually encourage him to do just that...the sooner the better.
I’m still trying to get my head around how this jury came to the conclusions they did in such a short time. There was so much evidence you’d think they would have asked some questions. Maybe they just all wanted to get home.
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.