Casey Anthony Trial

[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.

[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?

[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]

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.

[Sundae]

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.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Can someone explain to me the benefit of the 5th amendment? Obviously I understand what it does, but why is it a good thing? Why shouldn't we be able to make people take the stand and give answers to questions they don't want to answer?

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

[Clodfobble]

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.

[Happy Monkey]

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:

The Supreme Court has held that "a witness may have a reasonable fear of prosecution and yet be innocent of any wrongdoing. The privilege serves to protect the innocent who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances."

[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.

[infinite monkey]

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.

[Nirvana]

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??