Posted on 07/05/2011 5:08:33 PM PDT by Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears
It of course doesn't...however clearly this jury lacked the ability for critical thinking. There were things about this case to cause doubt...but not enough to override all the evidence provided otherwise.. "Reasonable" gives room to question but does not give room to simply arrive at a conclusion the party isn't guilty...nor that they should go free. Nothing this side of heaven is a certainty.
” Nothing this side of heaven is a certainty.”
unless...you regularly watch csi. In that case you expect forensic perfection and a great “AHA” moment.
If you don’t get it- you simply say the prosecution “didn’t do their job”
And that excuses you from failing to use your noggin’ to figure out basic logic and statistics.
Yes! Good grief, of course there’s doubt- there’s always doubt. I get in the car to go to the store and I might be involved in a car accident. Is it doubtful? Yes. Is it reasonably doubtful? Yes. Is it certain beyond all doubt? No.
I believe this jury was unclear about doubt and reasonable doubt. At the very LEAST they were confused by the judge’s instructions.
However- Alan Dershowitz reminded us last night of Blackstone’s theory of justice “...better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be imprisoned...”
That’s our system and we live with the consequences for good or ill.
That said, if a plaintiff gets a chance to put her in front of a civil jury, she's toast. They'll just present the case her defense presented and then say "So, if that's true, she lied to our client. If it's not true, she murdered Caylee and lied to our client." Game over.
I am not talking about “wrongful” death civil suits. I am talking about other civil suits from the real Zenida Gonzales or Tim Miller from Eqisearch..etc.
Of course there are crazies. Casey is one of them, but there are millions more. Did you know that 15 million people take prescription psychoactive drugs every day?
I concur
They can’t even prove the girl was MURDERED, much less who did it.
- - - - - - - -
Um...yeah, because 3 yr old kids wrap themselves in duct tape, put themselves in garbage bags, add more duct tape and throw themselves into the swamp every single day. /sarc
NO PROOF??? You have to be kidding me.
I know the burden of proof in on the prosecution, I deal with this crap every day and there was a lot of good evidence to say the mother did it. Sadly, for Caylee, the jury was lazy and stupid and expects every case to be like an episode of CSI, and that just isn’t reality in court.
What makes this case, and the OJ case so controversial is that so many people who were not in the courtroom disagree with the jury, who were in the courtroom.
The difference in perspective is huge.
I also found it interesting that my wife brought home a stack of People magazines home from work and on one was the cover story that the case against her may not stick. They basically said that being a liar does not make one a murderer and that the entire case against her was innuendo and similarly unprovable information.
From what I’ve seen, I’m not thinking she was much of a mom, but I normally don’t follow cases like this until they become newsworthy as this one has with the “surprise” verdict.
NOW this story is interesting!
BTW, I was shocked by the OJ verdict, but I’ve turned around. I think he was innocent. I think the most likely scenario is that he was covering for his son.
>>That means the defense did their job well. Muddy the waters enough to create confusion and doubt.
Sad isn’t it.<<
Having been on two long technical trial juries myself, I would like to amend your statement slightly:
Muddy the waters enough to EXPOSE confusion and doubt.
There is a reason for the “reasonable doubt” thing. It is because someone can LOOK guilty, but there is another explanation. I found the “fell into the pool and the family panicked” one pretty darned plausible.
>>Anyone who would toss their 2 year old’s child’s body away to be ravished by animals and vermin is one sick puppy and on that basis alone is deserving of contempt.<<
Actually, welcome to our modern culture.
I read a post here on FR just yesterday about a woman finding a lost 2 year old on a large, crowded beach and after searching for a long time for “mommy”, some guy came up claiming to be the kids uncle and took him. The woman followed him to make sure he was legit and when they arrived at a beach tent the “mommy” came out. She said that the toddler had been playing in the ocean and then disappeared.
Question: If you were on a large, crowded ocean beach and your two year old disappeared while playing in the ocean, would you still be in your beach tent when he was finally found?
Yeah, me neither.
Again, welcome to our modern culture.
>>...but it all depends on the judge’s instructions to the jury.”
I’m a huge fan of jury nullification. In both cases I was on jury duty I told the jury, after we entered the room for deliberation, that not a single one of us had to explain WHY we came to our personal decision, but only confirm that it WAS our personal decision. You can decide a person is guilty because you don’t like the way they part their hair. You can find them not guilty because you think you might want to date them after the trial.
The instructions from the judge are pretty meaningless to me.
>>Tell me, how long did it take this ‘caring mother’ to report her child missing?<<
I think it would have been easy to prove she was not a “caring mother”, but I understand that is really not against the law.
Interesting movie about a very twisted man.
“Why, are you going to do something? “
Surely, NOT! But, I have no doubt she’ll need a bodyguard.
“Why, are you going to do something? “
Surely, NOT! But, I have no doubt she’ll need a bodyguard.
I hope you never have you on your jury. You’ll probably hang yourself because you don’t like your haircut that day.
We are a nation of laws, and if you reject our laws, you shouldn’t serve on a jury. You are sworn in, but that obviously means nothing to you.
There isn’t any proof she was murdered. There is evidence that points to murder, but proof is a great deal more than evidence. Man I totally agree with your feelings. I think she should burn in hell. But as silly as the “drowning” story is, I think it is plausible.
The story is the ex-cop grandpa tried to make it look like a kidnapping/murder by placing the duct tape on the mouth and throwing the body away. There is no way of telling if the child drowned. There is no cause of death. There is no way of knowing if the tape was place post or pre mortem. There is no way of knowing beyond a reasonable doubt what happened.
IT SUCKS no doubt.
I doubt it. Casey will just lie. As will Cindy, Lee, and George. New day, Same sh!t.
>>I hope you never have you on your jury. You’ll probably hang yourself because you don’t like your haircut that day.
We are a nation of laws, and if you reject our laws, you shouldn’t serve on a jury. You are sworn in, but that obviously means nothing to you.<<
You need to read up on jury nullification.
I used extreme examples, but my point was simply this: Each juror has the right to weigh the evidence presented as he sees most fit and decide accordingly. After the verdict is read the court may ask each juror if that is their personal decision - a yes or no question. That is as far as it goes.
And I think I was VERY fair in my decision in both cases.
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.