Casey Anthony Trial

[infinite monkey]

Moi?

OK, I'll shut up 'cause YOU said so.

[infinite monkey]

As to the case: she didn't even get child abuse charges. Just the misleading the cops or whatever.

Though we all know there are all kinds of child abuse (some of it so sly that it slips right under almost everyone's radar) I do not know: were there allegations of any former abuse or neglect in which Casey was implicated?

[classicman]

I'll take the 5th.

@ IM - You are reading into my comment as usual regarding "as is"

[infinite monkey]

I'll drink a fifth!

Sigh, I wasn't reading anything into anything. You said that "as is" the system lets murderers go free. Seems to me you think things should change.

Maybe getting rid of the 5th amendment? Or chucking the whole constitution, because we know better (not reading into what you said, reading into what Clod said.) I can do some reading into action. But it's a serious question if you, or you, could look beyond your initial reaction to most things I say and realize that.

I'm kind of the dumb man's genius.

But I don't need to get my ass kicked again for your sake, so I'll let this soon to be circular maddening argument go.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by infinite monkey

I'll drink a fifth!
You said that "as is" the system lets murderers go free. Seems to me you think things should change.

Bzzzzzzzzzttt therein lies the problem.

The system is designed so that guilty people go free in exchange for the innocent being prosecuted (as much as possible) - IMO.

Oh and just for fun - the polls are starting ...

Was Justice Served in the Casey Anthony Trial?
No - Casey clearly killed Caylee and has gotten away with it.
80.12%

Yes - The prosecution didn't prove that Casey committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
19.88%

[infinite monkey]

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.

[glatt]

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.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by infinite monkey

Maybe getting rid of the 5th amendment? Or chucking the whole constitution, because we know better (not reading into what you said, reading into what Clod said.)

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.

[infinite monkey]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

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.

[Sundae]

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.

[infinite monkey]

Originally Posted by Sundae

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 testify here - and 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 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?

[Clodfobble]

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.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Sometimes, though, the public also has information the jury didn't have, because the judge didn't allow it for one reason or another.

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

[tw]

Originally Posted by glatt

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.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by tw

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

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.