Posted on 07/06/2011 8:04:09 AM PDT by Clive
Well, the vulgarity used in accusing George in opening statement sure ought to cause every father/grandfather it is open season on them IF 'reasonable' doubt is the key to a win in court.
NI it wasn’t it was a sign a jury wast oo stupid to understand that reasonable doubt is not no doubt at all. With their photos online I sure would not want to be one of them today!
Because people think the jury got it wrong? You are still being ridiculous.
Disagreeing with the jury is not the same thing as trashing the entire system. It's you jumping to that conclusion.
I really doubt God actually judges, seeing how He knows what we’re going to do before He creates us...and creates us anyway!
That's not what people are blaming the jury for. If the prosecutor did prove the case and jury couldn't think straight, then yes, you should blame the jury.
Do you know what "circumstantial evidence" is?
There is not one thing about a 'perfect' Creator IF this is what took place. The souls/spirit all were created long ago, then because the devil rebelled and decided he could do things better, some of those 'children' followed the devil. Now way back then in as Peter calls the 'age' that WAS, some 'sons of God stood against the rebel. These are the 'saints', that too were/are required to come through this flesh age.
Some are allowed to be who they were in that first 'age' but only to the point wherein they do NOT alter the plan set in motion for every soul/spirit who will be born of woman. The first requirement of any to 'see' the kingdom of God must be born of woman. NOT that all would willingly come through this flesh age are going to choose life.
There is no such thing as a soul/spirit manufacturing plant in heaven, wherein God produces a 'soul/spirit' every-time an egg gets fertilized.
Where's the "proof." A lot of people use cement for anchors. It's heavy. Maybe some one else killed her with their anchors. They could have used the same type of cheap containers to make them.
Where's the proof those cement weights were the same weights he made? Was there DNA? Finger prints? No, there wasn't. It was assumed only because it made sense. The jury used reason, not just the few hairs they had, to decide his case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence
“Other examples of circumstantial evidence are fingerprint, blood analysis or DNA analysis of the evidence found at the scene of a crime....”
The masses, including the MSM, overwhelmingly wanted Casey convicted.
“Circumstantial evidence is used in criminal courts to establish guilt or innocence through reasoning.”
“With obvious exceptions (immature, incompetent, or mentally ill individuals), most criminals try to avoid generating direct evidence. Hence the prosecution usually must resort to circumstantial evidence to prove the mens rea levels of “purposely” or “knowingly.” The same goes for tortfeasors in tort law, if one needs to prove a high level of mens rea to obtain punitive damages.”
“One example of circumstantial evidence is the behavior of a person around the time of an alleged offense. If someone was charged with theft of money and was then seen in a shopping spree purchasing expensive items, the shopping spree might be circumstantial evidence of the individual’s guilt.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence
“Indeed, the common metaphor for the strongest possible evidence in any case—the “smoking gun”—is an example of proof based on circumstantial evidence. Similarly, fingerprint evidence, videotapes, sound recordings, photographs, and many other examples of physical evidence that support the drawing of an inference, i.e., circumstantial evidence, are considered very strong possible evidence.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence
I always thought prosecutors held back from throwing every charge at a defendant for just this type situation.
Does anything prevent the State from now pursuing such carge against her?
And you know this HOW? Please provide the evidence for such a claim. I believe the 'state' (US by definition) presented more than reasonable evidence Casey was the last person who had custody of that child. Casey's counsel NEVER refuted this. And either we are going to become a complete social welfare state or else we are going to require parents to be held accountable for the 'safe' well being of their offspring.
And I do NOT find it 'reasonable' to make vulgar criminal accusations against a person as 'reason' why the client lies, and NEVER be required to PROVE said accusations.
I would expect them to rely on both, and use common sense and reason when listening to testimony. Everything the lawyer does and says is directed at them and the only goal is to persuade them.
This system is the only one we have. When picking a jury, "peers" is no longer used. A welfare recipient should not be used to judge a CEO. There's too much of a chance of bias, and a welfare recipient would have no concept of his legal professional duties or responsibilities (a lawyer could easily deceive a welfare receipting into believing he's a monster because he failed to donate to Housing for Habitat, for example, and his co workers did). His "peers" would be people similar to him. The court would then have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, using circumstance, reason and common sense, as well as forensics because the law would be on the side of the innocent first, and the "game playing" by the lawyers would not work. Deceit would be more obvious to someone similar.
Of course, the judge would be required to do his job as well. In the Anthony case, did the mother have anything to do with her daughters death was the target, but it turned into a "pervert dad" circus. Her father was not suppose to be the one on trial. Incest ( so Casey claimed, and she'd never lie) is not murder.
I don't mean to appear callous, but once the child was dead, no subsequent action or inaction by the mother could be classified as child abuse or neglect. It may be classified as some other crime but that was not charged. While the mother was quite likely guilty of some crime related to the death, the jury could only rule on the charges and evidence presented.
Evidence which TENDS to prove a fact.
Would you want to be convicted of a crime on circumstantial evidence alone? What if you were being framed?
Well, it’s good they are just your thoughts.
“: evidence that tends to prove a fact by proving other events or circumstances which afford a basis for a reasonable inference of the occurrence of the fact at issue’...Merriam-Webster
I think the words TEND and REASONABLE mean a lot to a jury member.
I did not dream 'my' thoughts up I can give you Scripture by Scripture wherein as Christ said I have foretold you ALL things.... Some are just not going to be able to 'see' or 'hear' for their own protection because they stood out there in the vast landscape of independence waiting to see which side appears to have majority thought.
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.