Not Guilty!

Townhall.com ^ | July 10, 2011 | Ken Connor

[brytlea]

That’s interesting. It may depend on where you live. I used to get called all the time when we lived in TX, but they always passed me over. For some reason I am a person they don’t want on a jury. Go figure.

[brytlea]

That’s interesting because I had heard the initial vote was 2 to convict (clearly I heard wrong). That is actually pretty powerful half, and then they all just changed their minds without even seeing any more evidence. That seems so odd. I wonder what the argument was. Well, someone will write a book.

[DoughtyOne]

That sounds about right.

[brytlea]

But people were getting convicted for murder before anyone know what DNA and fingerprints were.

Thank you, people seem to forget that.

[brytlea]

I can see a reason to eliminate people who have a connection to anyone in the trial or people with certain issues (someone who has been raped may be a bad choice for a rape trial for instance) but over all, the first 15 people in the pool who don’t have a medical issue that would preclude them, speak English and can serve seems pretty reasonable to me. I don’t know why there is very much selection needed. How did they select jurors say 60 or 70 years ago?

[DoughtyOne]

Ouch.

[brytlea]

Yes, I would like to see it reformed. I tried to find out how they used to select jurors. My instinct is that the current process is not the original, but who knows (not me). My only concern is that if defense attorneys have anything to do with it the reforms will be worse than the current system (ie, the defense attorney will handpick the entire jury!) :)

[brytlea]

You might be interesting to debate if you actually debated instead of just tried to denigrate and humiliate people. That’s just tiresome. But I suppose if it makes you feel better about yourself, carry on.

[starlifter]

If you feel denigrated and humiliated it's not my fault (nor my concern).

Though I do hope you feel better soon.

[starlifter]

If you feel denigrated and humilitated it’s not my fault (nor my concern).

Though I do hope you feel better soon.

[brytlea]

No, I don’t, but I can’t think of any other reason for your personal attacks that have no information about the case. Perhaps you have another explanation.

[starlifter]

What personal attack? Did you report me? The “Report Abuse” button should be used in the event of a personal attack.

[brytlea]

If you have anything to debate about the issue, I’m for that, if you just want to chat, there are other places for that. I’m finished with this. So, if you continue you will be talking to yourself.

[Grunthor]

If I was DA I would now hesitate before taking an circumstantial case before a jury, making us ALL more vulnerable. It amazes me that Scott PEterson was convicted on his circumstantial case.

---

Every DA SHOULD hesitate before taking a circumstantial case to trial.

I was surprised when Peterson was convicted. I “know” he did it but to this day there remains nothing tying him to any murder.

I’ve always believed that circumstantial cases are, at best ‘iffy.’ I hope to never serve on a jury deciding a case such as these. When you are talking possible death penalty, I’d like to have actual proof of guilt rather than just knowing “in my gut” that the person is guilty.

[brytlea]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence

[discostu]

It’s not seeing anybody through a jaundiced eye. The people complaining about this case always drop a sentence like “I don’t see how anybody could acquit knowing X” and if you dig into all you’ll find out X is a tidbit that came from a talking head on TV and never was presented as evidence to the jury. So as it turns out the jury doesn’t know X (or at least didn’t when they voted). But the people don’t think about that. So by putting that sentence in there is quite fairly frames the situation.

Nobody is saying the talking heads shouldn’t be taken into consideration, it’s a reminder that the talking heads presented information the jury never even GOT. And it’s a valid thing to remind people of, people tend to forget that we aren’t all operating from the same pool of information. They’ve been watching the trial on TV, reading about it on the web, discussing it with co-workers, making their own decisions based on a certain pile of information, then the jury comes back with a verdict completely at odds with that opinion of the general populace and the country yells “WTF”. Well that sentence accurately points to one of the primary reasons the jury and the general populace have two vastly different opinions: two vastly different pools of information. It doesn’t call anybody’s intelligence to question at all in any way, that’s junk YOU added based on not a single word in the sentence. You’re reading INTO it, I’m reading IT. IT doesn’t say what you’re reading IN.

[discostu]

Problem is they don’t have the evidence. They can’t even say how the child was killed, much less put Casey’s hands as doing the actions that did it. The evidence is supposed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. When the prosecuting attorney says they don’t know how or when the death happened the evidence isn’t proving much of anything.

[discostu]

Lack of another reasonable explanation is NOT proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt almost always manages to include method and time. The prosecuting attorney admits they don’t have either of those. The big problem is that with the evidence we have available the sentence boils down to this:
it seems likely that Casey at some decided to do something to her child which proved fatal, we’re not sure what she did, where she did it, or when she did it, and in fact we can’t even put her as the person who did it we just can’t find anybody that had the opportunity.

That’s just not a sentence that gets convictions. There’s way too much doubt.

[DoughtyOne]

It’s not seeing anybody through a jaundiced eye.  It is describing those who disagree with the jury in only one manner, when there are alternatives.  You can deal with that any way you like in your own mind.  It's not presenting a balanced view of what people may or may not have done to come to a different conclusion.  It is providing only one reason.  You still can't grasp that.  That's not my problem.  It's yours.

As a matter of record, two jurrors voted guilty for the main charge.  Six jurors voted gulity for manslaughter.  What talking head shows do you think they watched?  Oh, that's right, they didn't watch any.  So what's your explanation for them?

The writer didn't provide a category to cover them.  And you don't have the slightest clue that he didn't.  What's your answer for that?

The people complaining about this case always drop a sentence like “I don’t see how anybody could acquit knowing X” and if you dig into all you’ll find out X is a tidbit that came from a talking head on TV and never was presented as evidence to the jury.  LMAO, then you've haven't been listening to people when they disagree with you.  As a matter of fact, some of the jurors don't even agree with you, and they most certainly didn't fit into that short neat little propagandist diatribe written by the writer did they.

So as it turns out the jury doesn’t know X (or at least didn’t when they voted). But the people don’t think about that. So by putting that sentence in there is quite fairly frames the situation.

Yep, they're just too stupid to get out of their own way...  "Oh, but the writer and I never said that."  What the hell do you think the implication of the above statement is?

Yada, yada, yada, yada, yada...  Two jurors voted gulity for first degree murder. Six jurors voted guilty for manslauther.  Evidently there was enough of "X" in there for them.  Explain that to your writer buddy, who only thinks people on the outside who watch the talking head shows could come back with a guilty verdict.

Nobody is saying the talking heads shouldn’t be taken into consideration, it’s a reminder that the talking heads presented information the jury never even GOT.

When did I say the talking heads should be taken into consideration.  You're not expressing common ground here.  I'm not here to defend listening to the talking heads at all.  I'm here to address a writer placing everyone who disagreed with the jurors that voted to acquit, as people who must have done the exact same things to disagree.  And sadly, you still can't grasp this even yet.

And it’s a valid thing to remind people of, people tend to forget that we aren’t all operating from the same pool of information.

"But I never said people were stupid.  Neither did the writer.  Honest, we didn't."

It is not a valid thing to do, to foist of the idea that only members of the public who watched the talking head shows, could think Casey was guilty.  It is a non-valid way to compartmentalize people to make it easier to dismiss them.  How do you and this propagandist writer dismiss the jurors voting for guilty?  Did they have to have watched the talking head shows?  Well?

They’ve been watching the trial on TV, reading about it on the web, discussing it with co-workers, making their own decisions based on a certain pile of information, then the jury comes back with a verdict completely at odds with that opinion of the general populace and the country yells “WTF”.  There you go again, describing people you don't know, for doing things you haven't seen, and coming to conclusions you can't fathem, which just happens to be agreed upon by two jurors on the Murder One count, and six jurors on the manslaughter charge.  Oh wait, there was no evidence presented that could justify those verducts.  Actually, there seems to have been.  These jurors prove you wrong.  They prove the writer wrong.  His  propaganda doesn't fit.  If jurors on the panel could determine she was guilty, then it's the highth of stupidity to claim people on the outside couldn't come to the same conclusion based on the evidence the jury was exposed to.

Well that sentence accurately points to one of the primary reasons the jury and the general populace have two vastly different opinions: No it doesn't.  And now that we know jurors voted guilty, you're blowing smoke.  Two jurors on one count and six on another agreed with those of us who thought she was guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.  How do you explain that Sparky?

two vastly different pools of information. For some people yes.  Not for everyone.  I didn't watch the talking heads.  I didn't listen to commentaries on the trial.  I didn't enter threads on the forum to see what everyone else was thinking.  And you still can't acknowledge that the writer and you are dead wrong.  Not everyone who thinks Casey Anthony was guilty, has been swiming in the public swimming pool on this issue.  The jurors voting guilty, confirm that.

It doesn’t call anybody’s intelligence to question at all in any way,  It seeks to instill the impression that people are too supid to grasp why their opinions are different than the jurors.  Once again, that point is over your head.  It seeks to instill be impression that you couldn't disagree with the jurors unless you had engaged in the media circus surrounding the trial.  Once again, that point is over your head.  And now that we know what the jurors first voted, it highlites the shere nonsense both of you have been peddling.

that’s junk YOU added based on not a single word in the sentence.  You’re reading INTO it, I’m reading IT. IT doesn’t say what you’re reading IN.

Many who watched the trial on TV... ...and what about those who didn't?  Oh that's right, we're not admitting they exist.  We're going to lump everyone that disagrees with the jury into one category.  Now don't you think this is slanted, propagandist, because it isn't.  LMAO

Many who were not constrained from taking into account inadmissible evidence,.. ...and what about those who didn't?  Oh that's right, we're not admitting they exist.  We're going to lump everyone that disagrees with the jury into one category.  Now don't you think this is slanted, propagandist, because it isn't.  LMAO

Many who watched the punditry of various talking heads,... ...and what about those who didn't?  Oh that's right, we're not admitting they exist.  We're going to lump everyone that disagrees with the jury into one category.  Now don't you think this is slanted, propagandist, because it isn't.  LMAO

Many who observed the overwhelming public sentiment against Ms. Anthony... ...and what about those who didn't?  Oh that's right, we're not admitting they exist.  We're going to lump everyone that disagrees with the jury into one category.  Now don't you think this is slanted, propagandist, because it isn't.  LMAO

Many who did all this have been critical of the jury's verdict.  Nobody else was.  Only these people were.  That's not true.  It is a falsehood.  And promoting this mindset is propagandist in nature.

Not only does it lump everyone that disagrees into one group that has done all these things, it states that they are too stupid to realize why they disagree, even though that isn't the only alternative.  Here the writer feels the need to explain why others aren't as brilliant as he is.  The only thing is, some of us recognize a propagandist liar when we see one.  And some of us still don't.

Did the jurors who voted guilty have access to too much information?  Did they watch the talking head shows?  Did they listen to public opinion?  No.  Okay, where do they fit into the neat little package the writer described?  That's right, they don't.  Now, where is the description of members of the public who came to the same conclusion, but didn't do the above things?  Oh that's right, there isn't one.

Limping people together in one mish-mosh and not admitting the people in this group were not the only ones who thought the jurty was wrong, is propagandist.  There's simply no other descrption for it.  It was a one-sided depiction of those who thought the jury was wrong.  The implications are there.  You are having to excersise complete and total denial, to refrain from acknowledging it for what it is.

Not only that, it makes the case that people who listened to more information than the jury did, can't come to a reasoned conclusion that doesn't match the jurors.

So in conclusion, even though you and this reporter having labeled everyone as being incapable of reason, incabably of rational judgment, and even though members of the jury agreed with us, you two have decided it's just peachy to slander folks at will, then deny it for what it is.

I thought you two said there wasn't enough evidence.  Oh that's right, you did.  Perhaps you can set the two and six jurors, who proved you wrong, straight.

There was enough evidence presented after all.  It's not our fault that the two and six jurors didn't have enough character to do the right thing.

[discostu]

They aren’t describing people that disagree with the jury in ANY manner, they’re simply pointing out that they have a different set of information than the jury. It IS presenting a balanced view, it’s not prejudicial in any way. I’m grasping things just fine, what I’m not doing is making crap up. That’s YOUR problem, you want to be angry so you’re adding intent and content to the reporting that quite simply does NOT exist in any way.

The first jury vote doesn’t, it’s the unanimous jury vote that matters. The writers didn’t make any categories at all. All the categories are coming from YOU.

I didn’t say anybody was stupid. That’s you AGAIN making crap up entirely from whole cloth. Inserting your own meaning to stuff I said. The only implications to what I said is what I said. It’s a well document tendency in humans to forget that people they’re talking to in a non-instructive don’t have access to all the same information. It’s not pejorative to point it out, it’s just a good reminder.

There you go again going way out of your way to get angry. I never said you said anything about the talking heads. Again the sentence you’re all worked up about is simply pointing out that the TV audience got information from the talking heads the jury didn’t. Whether or not it should be taken into consideration is not stated, and does not matter. It’s an information pool that one group has and another doesn’t, THAT is the ONLY fact that matters.

Nobody said that only the TV audience COULD find Casey guilty. That AGAIN is from YOU.

OK now I simply have to laugh at you. You’re quite simply being silly. Every one of your paras that end in LMAO is just plain goofy. Why should they mention every single source of info every other possible group could have? it would be pointless wordy and just plain stupid to do so.

The jurors who voted guilty changed their votes. All of your questions on that are again simply silly. Since the sentence you’re obsessing on never once even implies that no other vote was possible all of your harping about other votes they made is completely and totally immaterial.

Stop reading into things. Every single complaint you have in that post, both about the original sentence AND about my post comes 100% from YOU, none of them are based even slightly in the ACTUAL text. It’s all bad assumption YOU stuck in there because apparently YOU have a real need to get angry. Funny in another completely unrelated thread today I quoted a grand old maxim:
Never let the facts get in the way of a good diatribe.

And you just lived up to that in this post. The facts are 100% against you, nobody is saying anything that you’re accusing them of, but you’re diatribing like a fiend.

Don’t bother to post again unless you’re limiting to ONLY what I wrote with absolutely no additional content from your own head. It’s simply not worth my time, or yours.