Peasants. Pitchforks. Who cares, the bottom line being that watching TV or looking at websites doesn't really qualify any percent of people to know anything.

We do chuck parts of it on a relatively regular basis. The 5th amendment actually being an amendment, chucking it would be a return to the original, more pure constitution, yes?

I'm sure there must be some legitimate reason for it, just like there are reasons for the electoral college system even though on the surface it looks pretty silly. I just can't think of any of those reasons.

I can't argue with that. :)

See, as a Brit it weirds me out that it horrifies you to make people answer questions, but it's okay to kill them.

Don't get me wrong, defendents can refuse to take the stand here, it's just that once they do they cannot refuse to answer without being in contempt of court.
Those who have strong cases against them or are unhinged in some way are strongly suggested not to do so by their solicitors.

Oh and I'm NOT being superior - we had a trial just last week where an already convicted murderer's defence (about another case with the same hallmarks) was allowed to bring up truly horrible suggestions about the dead girl's parents, despite there never being a suggestion from the Police that they were suspected.

ETA - looks like one of our gutter press employed a private detective who hacked the same teen's mobile phone for messages, and even DELETED them so more could fit in the voicemail. While she was still missing. It's headline news here, even if not relevant to this case. So no moral highground from me I promise.

I read about that earlier. That's creepy. Her parents thought it indicated she was alive, didn't they? :(

I haven't followed this case, but one thing I do know is that the jury has different information than the information the public has. That's the way it always is, and that's where the disconnect comes from when a decision seems crazy.

Sometimes, though, the public also has information the jury didn't have, because the judge didn't allow it for one reason or another. I remember an interview with 2 of the OJ jurors, and the host was showing them all this stuff that they hadn't been allowed to see. They were acting like it would have made a difference in their verdict, although I don't believe it would have after all.

Shawnee - yes.
So did the police.

The trial was awful enough for her parents, without this shit.
All I can hope is that this helps curtail some of the dirty practices of the red-tops.

There is a big campaign to boycott the News of the World.
Ford have already withdrawn as an advertiser and more will follow.
Although a part of me thinks moral outrage is ironic if you take this gutter-wipe seriously - they try to stir it up every week.

And this comes on the back of many other "scandals". All of which were originally denied and then settled out of court. And yet this time we're asked to believe them - no-one anywhere ever knew about this guv'nor! But the Private Detective who did it is already in prison so let's just all shush up about it, right?

No. You behave despicably, you might get away with it. You fulminate about other people breaking laws, you might just escape hypocrisy claims. You mess with a case about a schoolgirl, abducted and murdered on her way home from school with a huge hunt on for her body for months? Sorry chaps - there's going to have to be a cull.

Here's Wikipedia. It's Oliver Cromwell's fault.

Okay, but that's not reasonable in this day and age, IMHO. We don't torture confessions out of people anymore--and if you want to point to occasional police abuses to say we do, then I'd say obviously pleading the 5th didn't help them in those cases. It's an out-dated amendment.

All of the amendments were written with 18th century issues in mind, and have to be interpreted by each generation with regard to the issues of the day.

The 5th was relevant up through McCarthyism, at the very least, and I don't think that future witch hunts are out of the question - there is an effort to rehabilitate McCarthy's reputation. Just because McCarthy often managed to work around, and sometimes ignored the 5th doesn't mean its worthless.

We don't torture confessions Spanish-Inquisition-style anymore, but police routinely go as far as they can under the 5th amendment, so I certainly wouldn't want to make "as far as they can" to be further.

"Pleading the fifth" is just the "right to remain silent" when actually in court, rather than during police interrogation.

Also, would we really want to open every defendant to perjury charges if the jury doesn't believe their alibi? From wikipedia again:

Yeah. That's what I'm talking about mostly. The public almost always has information the jury doesn't have.

My jury experience says we were denied even basic information such as written text.

The judge's charge required us to meet seven points. But we were not permitted to have the judge's charge in writing in the room. Everything in the room came only from memory. So we literally invented the judge's charge. Due to no written transcripts and nothing else in writing, then anyone with imagination would invent testimony. Those who know only by having reasons why were silenced.

In a responsible world, all written testimony and even the judge's charge is in that room. IOW a jury does not have information that others have - my experience. Therefore a jury makes decisions based upon emotions; not based in facts and numbers.

Just like in the OJ Simpson trial, facts and numbers were completely ignored. A jury that was grasping facts and numbers had to be in that room far longer than 10 hours because all testimony, in a trial based in so much science, must be reread.

Hmmm, I think they made a decision based NOT on emotion. Emotional opinion is SHE WAS GUILTY AND SHOULD BE HANGED. Just look around at the unwashed masses, via twitter or facebook or in the streets or at the bar...legal experts, all.

The real issue is the prosecution went too far in charges pursued without any real evidence to back it up. Hearsay is not evidence. They had very, very, little to offer.

Beyond a reasonable doubt, remember. They didn't do their job, if she was, in fact, guilty.

ps JUST LIKE OJ JUST LIKE OJ. Hardly just like OJ. What a silly already overused comparison.

I read a repost on CNN of twitter comments (because I don't EVEN get the whole twitter thing, what's with the 'at' sign or the pound sign or whatever sign that precedes 'tweets'? But I digress.) It was about our justice system being based on "it's better to let a guilty person go free than to convict an innocent person." This is why the prosecutors need to do a good job and NOT rely on the emotional opinions of the masses, thinking the jury can't rise above emotional opinion.

Doesn't anyone else wonder who the father of this child was and think maybe it was Dad/grandpa? And maybe they covered it up because when she died they knew they would be found out to be having an incestuous relationship because of the testing that could be done during an autopsy?? :(

Well I wonder NOW!

Eeeeks. Interesting theory.

Yeah. That's the way it is, and I think it's crazy. But my understanding is that they don't want the jury to have all the written testimony in front of them because they could wind up getting bogged down on trivial matters that have no bearing on the important issues of the case.

I think that both lawyers should be able to give the jury a ten page outline of their arguments with imbedded quotations of relevant testimony and exhibits. An executive summary of each side's position. That would give the jury some information they can refer to and would also keep them focused on the issues each side thinks is important.

I was wondering that too, Nirvana. Where's the dad? Do they even know who Dad is? Yeah, who the hell knows.

The whole thing is a big show. I am surprised she wasn't even convicted of child abuse. I thought there was enough evidence to support even that. But like so many people mentioned already, the jury gets limited information.

FTFY ;)

Many agree, but we have to let the system work. Some guilty go free, hopefully we can minimize those innocent that serve time unjustly. Far from perfect, but I wouldn't change it for any other place at the moment.

DNA testing was done and both George (dad) and Lee (brother) were excluded as possible fathers.

Wouldn't that be a heck of a Maury show ...

HLN was talking about whether or not the biological father, if ever identified, could pursue a wrongful death civil suit against Casey. Heck, even Casey may not know who he is.

She has already been served by Zenaida Gonzalez' attorney for defamation of character.

My prediction: Casey Anthony will be dead within two years, either suicide or drug overdose. Is it too late to add her to my celebrity death pool?

I think she may have to go into some type of witness protection program of security, they have already stationed extra cops outside of her house.

Bullshit. You are so high on drugs. It was EXACTLY like OJ.

OJ: Running back for the Buffalo Bills, portrayed a navy SEAL, African American

CA: Running back for the Buffalo Bills, portrayed a navy SEAL, African American

What more evidence do you need? Next, you're gonna start in on the whole six million lies thing, aren't you?

If the trash bag don't fit (over Casey's head), you must acquit

Thanks foot3. I guffawed.

From FailBlog:

Attachment 32955


Ooowwwwwwch. :lol:

You're a damn genius. :D

Looking forward to Casey Anthony's non-fiction book that will be titled, "The Perfect Murder - How I did It". Even OJ could not use that title.

Sounds like a made for Lifetime movie.

I'll go for "I Lost An Angel" as the auto (ghost written) biography.
Where Casey is the real victim, rather than her daughter, because Casey has to live with the tragedy. And with other people's opinions of her.
And evidence re her abusive childhood is conveniently dropped because it was a stranger murder.

With a couple of fill-in chapters about JonBenet and the Marie-Celeste to pad it out.

I think Sundae nailed it. Add in a chapter on that Megan kid, and it's a best seller.

tldr

Here you go:

http://www.time4learning.com/reading-programs.shtml

You'll be reading like the big boys in no time.

I don't know much about this, but I feel strongly that there is a definitely probable possibility that she might not be not guilty, or guilty for that matter, although we can't exclude the possibility of the former superceding the latter--or vice versa!

Right on!

I really didn't follow this story much at all. Did she ever give any explanation of why she never reported her daughter missing?

HOF!

So I heard today that there was a pro bono expert analysing social media (tweets specifically) during the trial to get a feeling for what the public felt about the prosecutions case as they were putting it on. They shared this info with the defense who then tailored their strategy to what they believed would most dramatically affect the jury.

Ie: if a lot of tweets said the public didn't like the father and felt he was hiding something, the defense would then create doubt around the father and a conspiracy of silence involving him.

Wanna bet judges start ordering tweeting out of their courtrooms?

Also, I've read that there are allegations of witness tampering, which are being investigated by the police. No idea who or what, however.

They can and usually do ban cell phones in the courthouse. The tweets would have been out in the real world by people watching it on TV. There's nothing the judge can do about that.

Experts telling lawyers how to tug on the heartstrings of the jury is a long and pretty advanced tradition. It's even what Dr. Phil did before he was discovered by Oprah and got his own TV show.

Edit: What surprises me is that somebody did it pro bono. They must have been fairly new to the field and were trying to build up their resume.

Apparently it's the first time the tactic has been used by analyzing tweets during the actual proceedings.

Tweaking defense

I suppose it's because this one was big enough that it made it onto twitter's radar.