Originally Posted By hopemax So the Prosecutor is saying the reason for the not guilty is because there was no official "cause of death." An alternate has come forward and said that he would have voted the same way <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/US/casey-anthony-verdict-alternate-juror-calls-good-mother/story?id=14005609" target="_blank">http://abcnews.go.com/US/casey...14005609</a> ""The prosecution failed to prove their case and there was reasonable doubt. Again, they didn't show us how Caylee died. They didn't show us a motive." So it seems the lesson is, if you can hide the body well enough, that it decomposes and a coroner can't determine if it was asphyxiation, or something else, then you have reasonable doubt.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>the case was on every day in Florida -- not media portrayal- the actual trial so those people could decide exactly what happened<< I understand that. But anyone so invested in the case that they'd watch every minute, from opening statement until the end, was almost certainly obsessed with the case and would've followed the media coverage closely, and would've been convinced of her guilt from the beginning. And from their our brain works its magic to convince us of what we already believe. We watch the trial and become even more convinced of her guilt, while subconsciously minimizing the arguments against guilt. It's just how we evolved. I don't want to come across as if I'm defending Anthony; if she's guilty then that means she feels like premeditated murder is an acceptable way to solve problems. That indicates a serious psychopathy at work, and I don't want her free. I've just read too many stories of things seeming "so obvious" and everyone so convinced of guilt...when someone was really innocent.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Imagine that today the media, the online community and politicians were as focused on ALL abused children as they are on Caylee and Casey. What could we accomplish? My guess is a lot more than we are accomplishing right now.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<"I've been on a jury a couple of times (armed robbery, insurance fraud). Those experiences have, sadly, convinced me that the system is indeed "warped," at best." I'm sorry you feel that way.>> I'm sorry, too. My limited experiences of serving on a jury (and at not being chosen to serve on a jury) gave me an "inside" view that left me completely disheartened with our judicial system. On my two calls to jury duty I dealt with: -- fellow jurors who explicitly stated that because they were self-employed and losing money by serving, they would vote for the most expeditious decision without regard to the facts of the case. -- a judge who slept through half of the trial. -- a judge whose speech was so unintelligible that when he read us our instructions, none of us could understand him. When we retired to deliberate, we asked for a written copy of the guidelines we should rule by. We were told by the bailiff that they weren't available. -- being disqualified from serving because my life experience would've given me good insight into the case. -- serving with fellow jurors whose decisions were made at Moment One of the trial based upon the way the defendent looked and who disregarded subsequent evidence that contracticted their prejudices. -- a public defender who obviously hadn't read the case file before the morning of the trial. <<However, no one has ever been able to come up with anything better.>> I believe Japan uses professional jurors. I think that arrangement is far superior to having a half-dozen double-digit-IQ "peers" deciding a fellow citizen's fate. And some judicial systems do far better than others at monitoring and enforcing judges' and public servants' and the overall system's efficacy. <<but usually the system works pretty well.>> "Works pretty well" would be a good grade for a department store, an on-line dating service, or a weed-whacker. "Works pretty well" is not a sufficient grade for a omnipotent system that decides upon a person's freedom -- especially when there are obvious improvements that can be made to that system.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<Anecdotsl, Inspector, anecdotal.>> I have related real-life evidence of our judicial system not working at the level to which you claim it works. It's disingenious for you to dismiss my experience as "anecdotal." I am surely not the only one who has experienced these failures of our system. And even if I were, my experiences indicate several systemic weaknesses in our judicial process. Why do you so casually dismiss my experience as "anecdotal," inconsequential? You are coming across as similar to some of my fellow jurors -- a person who has already reached a decision and will not tolerate evidence that contradicts his position.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance "Seen on Twitter: Dear Dexter, we have a new job for you." Ha! Good ole Dexter would take care of her.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I have related real-life evidence of our judicial system not working at the level to which you claim it works. It's disingenious for you to dismiss my experience as "anecdotal." I am surely not the only one who has experienced these failures of our system. And even if I were, my experiences indicate several systemic weaknesses in our judicial process. Why do you so casually dismiss my experience as "anecdotal," inconsequential? You are coming across as similar to some of my fellow jurors -- a person who has already reached a decision and will not tolerate evidence that contradicts his position." What's disingenuous is for you to generalize about the entire judicial system because you've had a few bad experiences. I work in the system. I'm in it every day. I've never claimed it's perfect, but I will tell you with 100% certainty it's the best you're ever going to see.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance I'd like to see the actual statistical odds of the likelihood of her not being involved when you take all the evidence (circumstantial or not) into account. Yes all of these things that make it seem likely she is guilty COULD be a coincidence but the odds of that are one in a _______. As a mother it's difficult hearing she was not guilty. It really hits you hard knowing she likely got away with killing her child. Another thing, I think it's bull that defendants like her are able to not testify if they choose. She is accused of killing someone she should be required to get up there and answer to all the evidence against her. But she can get out of it because her lawyers fear it'll be too damaging to her? That's ridiculous.
Originally Posted By Princessjenn5795 It is frustrating but the 5th amendment is there for a reason. The part of the 5th that says "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, " is a right that everyone has.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "But she can get out of it because her lawyers fear it'll be too damaging to her? That's ridiculous." Well, no. For one thing, she decides, not her lawyers. They'll advise and recommend, but if she wanted to testify, she could have against their wishes. And as post 70 says, the Fifth Amendment guarantees her Constitutional right to stay silent. She didn't have any burden of proof, the prosecution did. Definitely not ridiculous.
Originally Posted By dshyates Concerning why this case got a lot of attention and others across the country do not, is because of the media friendly FL law. The law allows media access to much more evidence and discovery findings than any other state. So it us much easier to follow the case from start to finish. All the other states don't feed the media the meat until the trial starts.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf Could it not also be true that this case received so much attention because Casey is an attractive young woman? For right or for wrong, successful television programs tend to be dominated by attractive people. I submit that had she been unattractive, the case would not have received the attention it did.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper That depends. If she were REALLY unattractive then it would have been aired as well. Jerry Springer made a fortune off ugly people.
Originally Posted By ecdc SPP's obviously more qualified and knowledgeable, than I am, but I'd echo what he's saying. The system doesn't guarantee a guilty person will go to jail. Standards must be met, including a burden of proof. People seem wrapped up in the perceived "unfairness" of it all. A little girl is dead and the presumed killer is free - no one likes that. But the beauty of our system is its dispassion. If it was there to satisfy outrage, it would be far more broken than some here are claiming.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>SPP's obviously more qualified and knowledgeable,<< And probably much better with comma use.
Originally Posted By mrkthompsn So... who's ready for putting Khalid Sheikh Mohammed on criminal trial today?
Originally Posted By ecdc >>So... who's ready for putting Khalid Sheikh Mohammed on criminal trial today?<< Me. Funny thing, I love America so I have faith in her institutions, warts and all.
Originally Posted By Princessjenn5795 >>So... who's ready for putting Khalid Sheikh Mohammed on criminal trial today?<< Me too. Our system may not be perfect, but holding someone indefinitely without a trial or insisting on a military tribunal or whatever, where the outcome is pretty much guaranteed, is wrong. Everyone has the right to a trial in which all evidence is presented and the outcome is based on the validity of that evidence. Also, before 9/11 and all the terrorist panic, he would have already been tried in either a New York court or federal court, depending on jurisdiction. That is how past terrorists have been dealt with; terrorism is not a new thing. After 9/11 everyone went crazy overboard and started changing all of the judicial rules in terrorism cases, and that is wrong.
