I Know Longer Believe

[Carly_Roach]

You are ok with guilty people going free?

No, but I'd prefer guilty people go free than innocent people be jailed and/or put to death.

It just flummuxes me how people..Americans even....just. don't. get. this. Mob mentality, preferential treatment based on who you are and "accused means they're guilty, otherwise no one would believe the accusation" are what our forefathers and foremothers were escaping. It's a HUGE reason for the founding of our country. Do they not teach history in school anymore or do people just learn it for the test and then forget it?

 

[joviroxx]

I posted last night, involuntary manslaughter was not on the form.

.

There is no involuntary manslaughter in Florida. Its excusable manslaughter and its lawful.

 

[Carly_Roach]

There is no involuntary manslaughter in Florida. Its excusable manslaughter and its lawful.

As in,

"Why did you shoot that man?"

"'Cause he needed shootin!"

 

[Mosoh]

Here's where the problem lies:

What I think or whatever assumptions I may make have zero impact on the situation. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Nothing. It's in this perception that just by talking about it I can change the outcome of this particular case that I would find the same angst, anger, and heartbreak that many who've invested their time and energy in this case are experiencing at this very moment. To which I have to say to them:

I don't feel sorry for your angst, anger and heartbreak - you brought it all on yourself by getting involved in something that first you had no business getting involved in and second, you had no chance ever changing what 12 jurors were going to see and how they were going to find.

This is Monday Morning Quarterbacking at it's finest. I could come up with all sorts of great evidence and/or reasons for what you ask. But all I will have accomplished is wasting my precious time fighting. Nothing I say will change the outcome of this trial! NOTHING!

Those jurors who chose NOT to speak to the media, who chose to go home and hug their families, did the absolute right thing. Nothing could be accomplished by explaining themselves except for a public flogging by people who disagreed with their opinion. They were going to be ripped up one side and down the other by NG and her ilk no matter what they did, so they chose to go home and experience the love and joy of their families rather than the judgment and hate of those who disagreed with their opinions.

Call them stupid all you want; their actions show them to be pretty smart as far as I'm concerned.

If they didn't royally screw up and generate the anger from the public some of them would have gladly stood in the limelight of their verdict. They ran and hid under the advisement of smarter people then themselves.

They are in for a rude awakening. The smug few who know little about the case to opine but can't stop from embracing the system are suddenly out in droves. Talk about Monday morning quarterbacking.

 

[Carly_Roach]

If they didn't royally screw up and generate the anger from the public some of them would have gladly stood in the limelight of their verdict. They ran and hid under the advisement of smarter people then themselves.

They are in for a rude awakening. The smug few who know little about the case to opine but can't stop from embracing the system are suddenly out in droves. Talk about Monday morning quarterbacking.

We don't need to know that much about the case. We weren't on the jury (nor were any of those who are so sure of their opinion). It was the jury's decision, not ours.

Further, we have the wherewithal to know, internalize and understand that the verdict in this case never was and never will be our call. I didn't agree with the OJ verdict, but I dealt with it because it is our American justice system and went on with my life. Is it a perfect system? No. But it's the best we have for now and the most fair to the greatest amount of people who've ever gone through it. Just because one or two cases in 20 years happen along where we don't like the outcome, that's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater and declare our system bad, wrong or broken.

 

[phinz]

We don't need to know that much about the case. We weren't on the jury (nor were any of those who are so sure of their opinion). It was the jury's decision, not ours.

Further, we have the wherewithal to know, internalize and understand that the verdict in this case never was and never will be our call. I didn't agree with the OJ verdict, but I dealt with it because it is our American justice system and went on with my life. Is it a perfect system? No. But it's the best we have for now and the most fair to the greatest amount of people who've ever gone through it. Just because one or two cases in 20 years happen along where we don't like the outcome, that's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater and declare our system bad, wrong or broken.

Once again Carly gets a million reputation points from me.

 

[bevgray]

Do they not teach history in school anymore?

Nope, they do not. Which is why one hears a graduate of Harvard Law School say we "owe the French so much because our legal code is based on theirs" (heard the little twerp commenting on a different matter a couple of years ago and was appalled that he said such a thing).

Be very thankful it is not. Basically, the French or Napoleonic Code is "guilty until proven innocent" which seems to be the prevailing opinion out there based on media coverage. Our legal system (rooted in centuries of Britain's legal traditions) is "innocent until proven guilty". The burden of proof is always with the prosecution. The defense doesn't have to prove a darn thing.

The jury rendered a verdict of "not guilty" which means the prosecution was not able to bring that burden of proof to bear.

I have not followed the case at all. I stopped watching such things years ago when Patty Hearst was "tried and convicted by the media and public" before she even came to trial.

Unfortunately, our culture's addiction to "reality TV" seems to be entering a new low.

 

[joviroxx]

I have not followed the case at all. I stopped watching such things years ago when Patty Hearst was "tried and convicted by the media and public" before she even came to trial.

Unfortunately, our culture's addiction to "reality TV" seems to be entering a new low.

If you have not followed the case nor spoken to people who have for the past 3 years, how do you pass such judgement?

Are you familiar with the Florida Sunshine Laws?

 

[ols386]

We don't need to know that much about the case. We weren't on the jury (nor were any of those who are so sure of their opinion). It was the jury's decision, not ours.

Further, we have the wherewithal to know, internalize and understand that the verdict in this case never was and never will be our call. I didn't agree with the OJ verdict, but I dealt with it because it is our American justice system and went on with my life. Is it a perfect system? No. But it's the best we have for now and the most fair to the greatest amount of people who've ever gone through it. Just because one or two cases in 20 years happen along where we don't like the outcome, that's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater and declare our system bad, wrong or broken.[/

Then maybe our legislators need to be looking at ways to improve our judicial system.

 

[Carly_Roach]

Nope, they do not. Which is why one hears a graduate of Harvard Law School say we "owe the French so much because our legal code is based on theirs" (heard the little twerp commenting on a different matter a couple of years ago and was appalled that he said such a thing).

Be very thankful it is not. Basically, the French or Napoleonic Code is "guilty until proven innocent" which seems to be the prevailing opinion out there based on media coverage. Our legal system (rooted in centuries of Britain's legal traditions) is "innocent until proven guilty". The burden of proof is always with the prosecution. The defense doesn't have to prove a darn thing.
The jury rendered a verdict of "not guilty" which means the prosecution was not able to bring that burden of proof to bear.

I have not followed the case at all. I stopped watching such things years ago when Patty Hearst was "tried and convicted by the media and public" before she even came to trial.

Unfortunately, our culture's addiction to "reality TV" seems to be entering a new low.

Did you ever see the movie, "Serial Mom"? I loved where she was representing herself and, when it comes up to her time to make her case, she stands up and says, "The prosecution has proven nothing, Your Honor. The defense rests also!"

 

[Mosoh]

I don't believe that's correct however I don't have the time right now to spend digging up evidence to prove my case.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this.

There is nothing to disagree with. Facts are not disputable


CLICK

 

[mickeyboat]

Then maybe our legislators need to be looking at ways to improve our judicial system.

What are your suggestions?

My only real qualm with the case is from opening statements. I don't think the attorneys should be able to throw things out there that they do not have a good faith intention / reliable evidence to prove.

 

[bevgray]

I pass judgement based on the fact that the Jury acquitted this woman. Therefore, the Prosecution did not provide the burden of proof required.

Just as those who apparently immersed themselves in the media feeding frenzy are passing judgement on 12 citizens who appear to have done their duty.

I wasn't there. I didn't hear the evidence. Neither did you unless you were one of the 12. If you are basing your own "call for guilt" on what you saw on television or have picked up from some "analyst", then you have only an opinion and, thank God, we are not convicted on "opinion" in this country.

Frankly, I did peek in on some of the commentary after the verdict. Simply because the outrage of some of my co-workers who seemed to be wanting to storm the courthouse with a rope. Their fury seemed disproportionate to me so I was curious. I heard some analyst (who claimed to be a judge) throwing out passionate claims that the jury had not been instructed properly and the poor little girl was not given justice. All I can say is it's a good thing that female is no longer on the bench. There is a reason Justice is usually depicted as blindfolded and holding scales.

Passion and empathy have no place in the legal system. If we allow that, we are one step away from a return to mob rule. If that child had been a 13 year old, cross-eyed male, I wonder if there would have been quite the angst that has been prevalent. Much of what I've heard bears a distressing similarity to the kind of hysteria one sees at sporting events. My team "lost". It isn't fair! There are no winners or losers here. A child died. The mother may or may not have a hand in that death. However, the legal system worked. I'd be far more concerned in a jury bowed to public and media pressure to convict. "To Kill a Mockingbird" anyone?

 

[Toad_Passenger]

I pass judgement based on the fact that the Jury acquitted this woman. Therefore, the Prosecution did not provide the burden of proof required.

Just as those who apparently immersed themselves in the media feeding frenzy are passing judgement on 12 citizens who appear to have done their duty.

I wasn't there. I didn't hear the evidence. Neither did you unless you were one of the 12. If you are basing your own "call for guilt" on what you saw on television or have picked up from some "analyst", then you have only an opinion and, thank God, we are not convicted on "opinion" in this country.

Frankly, I did peek in on some of the commentary after the verdict. Simply because the outrage of some of my co-workers who seemed to be wanting to storm the courthouse with a rope. Their fury seemed disproportionate to me so I was curious. I heard some analyst (who claimed to be a judge) throwing out passionate claims that the jury had not been instructed properly and the poor little girl was not given justice. All I can say is it's a good thing that female is no longer on the bench. There is a reason Justice is usually depicted as blindfolded and holding scales.

Passion and empathy have no place in the legal system. If we allow that, we are one step away from a return to mob rule. If that child had been a 13 year old, cross-eyed male, I wonder if there would have been quite the angst that has been prevalent. Much of what I've heard bears a distressing similarity to the kind of hysteria one sees at sporting events. My team "lost". It isn't fair! There are no winners or losers here. A child died. The mother may or may not have a hand in that death. However, the legal system worked. I'd be far more concerned in a jury bowed to public and media pressure to convict. "To Kill a Mockingbird" anyone?

I just wanted to point out that the trial was covered live gavel-to-gavel, complete with all of the side issues, and there are people who watched every second.

 

[brea]

Some of you should be ashamed of yourselves.

Is it a terrible tragedy that child lost her life? ABSOTIVELY

Is her mother breaking new ground in the "Mother of the year awards in hell"? POSILOUTELY

Did she do it? Based on the information known it cannot be determined beyond a reasonable doubt!!!

I consider myself to follow the bible and it's guide about living life. If I were on the jury I would take serious issue with the fact that they were asking me to find her guilty where they were seeking the death penalty. I also would require that the case be proven "BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT" and from what I know so far I did not see anything that could bring me to that conclusion.

The interesting thing about following the Bible is that I also believe there's clear guidance on care for children and that you can and will be judged for that when you meet your maker so I could give that verdict and feel comfortable that if wrong my mistake would be resolved at the appropriate time.

 

[joviroxx]

I pass judgement based on the fact that the Jury acquitted this woman. Therefore, the Prosecution did not provide the burden of proof required.

Just as those who apparently immersed themselves in the media feeding frenzy are passing judgement on 12 citizens who appear to have done their duty.

I wasn't there. I didn't hear the evidence. Neither did you unless you were one of the 12. If you are basing your own "call for guilt" on what you saw on television or have picked up from some "analyst", then you have only an opinion and, thank God, we are not convicted on "opinion" in this country.

Frankly, I did peek in on some of the commentary after the verdict. Simply because the outrage of some of my co-workers who seemed to be wanting to storm the courthouse with a rope. Their fury seemed disproportionate to me so I was curious. I heard some analyst (who claimed to be a judge) throwing out passionate claims that the jury had not been instructed properly and the poor little girl was not given justice. All I can say is it's a good thing that female is no longer on the bench. There is a reason Justice is usually depicted as blindfolded and holding scales.

Passion and empathy have no place in the legal system. If we allow that, we are one step away from a return to mob rule. If that child had been a 13 year old, cross-eyed male, I wonder if there would have been quite the angst that has been prevalent. Much of what I've heard bears a distressing similarity to the kind of hysteria one sees at sporting events. My team "lost". It isn't fair! There are no winners or losers here. A child died. The mother may or may not have a hand in that death. However, the legal system worked. I'd be far more concerned in a jury bowed to public and media pressure to convict. "To Kill a Mockingbird" anyone?

You don't know what I know, how much I know or why I know it. You are passing judgement on people without knowing a darn thing about them. What I know, how I know it and why I know it has nothing to do with media frenzy. I at least, have informed myself of the facts of this case with my own research and formed my opinions based on that.

You admittedly have no facts.. You trust the jury made the right decision ,that is your right. I don't, I have my reasons , but you have judged it without one iota of information.

 

[joviroxx]

I just wanted to point out that the trial was covered live gavel-to-gavel, complete with all of the side issues, and there are people who watched every second.

As well as have been immersed in the evidence or that past 3 years. The Florida Sunshine Laws gave that opportunity.

 

[ols386]

What are your suggestions?

My only real qualm with the case is from opening statements. I don't think the attorneys should be able to throw things out there that they do not have a good faith intention / reliable evidence to prove.

You mean like when the defense began by saying that George Anthony had sexually abused Casey when she was a child? No reliable evidence of that. They only threw that out there to muddy the waters. And in the end, couldn't even use it in their closing arguments, per the Judge's instructions.

 

[Donaldswife]

I pass judgement based on the fact that the Jury acquitted this woman. Therefore, the Prosecution did not provide the burden of proof required.

Just as those who apparently immersed themselves in the media feeding frenzy are passing judgement on 12 citizens who appear to have done their duty.

I wasn't there. I didn't hear the evidence. Neither did you unless you were one of the 12. If you are basing your own "call for guilt" on what you saw on television or have picked up from some "analyst", then you have only an opinion and, thank God, we are not convicted on "opinion" in this country.

Frankly, I did peek in on some of the commentary after the verdict. Simply because the outrage of some of my co-workers who seemed to be wanting to storm the courthouse with a rope. Their fury seemed disproportionate to me so I was curious. I heard some analyst (who claimed to be a judge) throwing out passionate claims that the jury had not been instructed properly and the poor little girl was not given justice. All I can say is it's a good thing that female is no longer on the bench. There is a reason Justice is usually depicted as blindfolded and holding scales.

Passion and empathy have no place in the legal system. If we allow that, we are one step away from a return to mob rule. If that child had been a 13 year old, cross-eyed male, I wonder if there would have been quite the angst that has been prevalent. Much of what I've heard bears a distressing similarity to the kind of hysteria one sees at sporting events. My team "lost". It isn't fair! There are no winners or losers here. A child died. The mother may or may not have a hand in that death. However, the legal system worked. I'd be far more concerned in a jury bowed to public and media pressure to convict. "To Kill a Mockingbird" anyone?

Just because the state could not PROVE she killed her daughter, does not mean she is innocent. I'm sure a lot of people believe she did it (I do,) but it was not proven beyone a reasonable doubt to the jury. If she did it and it was not proven, the fault lies with the prosecutor, not the jury.

Honestly, if I was on a jury where someone's life depended on my decision, I wouldn't be as quick to convict as some on this thread seem to be. I am not anti death penalty, but being responsible for sending someone else to their death is a big burden to bear. Obviously the jury had reasonable doubts.

Unfortunately there will be no justice for Caylee and this case will likely never be solved. The only people that know what really happened aren't ever going to tell us the truth, and even if they did - who would believe them amid all the lies they have already told?

 

[mickeyboat]

You mean like when the defense began by saying that George Anthony had sexually abused Casey when she was a child? No reliable evidence of that. They only threw that out there to muddy the waters. And in the end, couldn't even use it in their closing arguments, per the Judge's instructions.

Yes, that is exactly what I mean.

The only consolation I have is that the jurors did what they were told to do and did not use the opening statement as evidence.