Sharp as a Marble - I’m so glad I didn’t get jury duty recently

<< Smoked salmon | Home | Currently, there is a man in South Dakota >>

I’m so glad I didn’t get jury duty recently

News

I keep getting asked what I think of the Casey Anthony trial. My response has been “who?” which, had I gotten picked for jury duty, would have landed me in that box for a few weeks.

Outside of a few “popular” details, I have no clue. This is what I get for not watching TV.

posted @ 7/5/2011 8:59:02 AM

Comments

Sarah says:

on 7/5/2011 9:26:45 AM

If I didn't already know that you got rid of your cable-TV account, this would have done it. I try to watch the FOX News cycle in the mornings and, instead of news I might care about, it's THE CASEY ANTHONY TRIAL.

Sigh.

The good news is that the circus is about to take down the tents and move on. The bad news is that the talking heads will probably want to do live commentary. "That's the District Attorney putting legal pads and pens into his briefcase. Is that a Cross pen, $Coanchor? I can't tell? Yeah, that's a Cross pen with gold inlay."

:)

Robb Allen says:

on 7/5/2011 9:42:17 AM

Oh, don't forget the ticker at the bottom will read "Anthony - Still guilty after 7 months?" next Feb.

Then they'll run a Natalie Halloway special...

Bubblehead Les says:

on 7/5/2011 10:30:21 AM

So a Bimbo kills her baby because she was keeping her from Partying, and her trial gets Nationwide wall-to-wall coverage, yet up here in Cleveland, a Serial Killer is on Trial for slaughtering a dozen women, yet it doesn't make the MSM.

Wonder if it's due to the fact that the women slaughtered and the Killer were all Black?

ZerCool says:

on 7/5/2011 10:48:48 AM

Hm. I just had to google it to find out.

Must be I'm paying more attention to important things.

DirtCrashr says:

on 7/5/2011 11:59:58 AM

Who?? I still don't know nothing about her.

Jake says:

on 7/5/2011 3:12:58 PM

Oh, and if anyone cares, they found her "not guilty" of everything but the charges of lying to police.

Sadly, it's kind of hard to prove murder, manslaughter, or negligent homicide "beyond a reasonable doubt" when no one can even state a cause of death.

Bubblehead Les says:

on 7/5/2011 3:14:35 PM

Doesn't matter. Jury just let her walk. She must be related to O.J. Simpson.

Of course, we now have to find out who the "True Killer" is.

Stuart the Viking says:

on 7/5/2011 3:24:42 PM

Jake,

The way I see it, the state just didn't do their job proving the case. I didn't watch a whole lot of it, but when I did catch spots, I found myself saying "wow, that doesn't prove anything" almost every time. The state relied upon a lot of circumstantial evidence and "it's weird, right?" rather than building a solid case and that failed to convince the jury.

Either way the verdict could have gone, there was no justice to be had in this trial.

s

Jake says:

on 7/5/2011 4:07:00 PM

Either way the verdict could have gone, there was no justice to be had in this trial.

I'm in total agreement on that. The problem is, as I understand things, that the state probably couldn't have gotten much more than what they presented.

If you can't even show a cause of death, there's simply no basis for a murder/manslaughter/abuse conviction, because there's no evidence to contradict any defense - even if it's just "he just died, I don't know why."

Personally, I think she did it - whether it was neglect, abuse, or outright murder - but without actual evidence, that's simply not enough to convict in the face of any sort of defense.

mariner says:

on 7/5/2011 6:17:19 PM

If you can't even show a cause of death, there's simply no basis for a murder/manslaughter/abuse conviction, because there's no evidence to contradict any defense - even if it's just "he just died, I don't know why."

When a body is found

1. In the woods
2. In a garbage bag
3. With the mouth taped over
4. Too decomposed for the coroner to determine the cause of death

I don't see why cause of death is a stumbling block.

Would it really matter whether the poor girl were strangled, poisoned, shot or just beaten to death?

It's not like she was found in her bed at home apparently uninjured.

Stuart the Viking says:

on 7/6/2011 8:10:39 AM

mariner,

Nobody said that a child didn't die under... rather suspicious... circumstances. What the state failed to do is provide any proof that Casey was the DO-er. All they really proved is that she is a liar (and a screwup). I think that if the state had ANYTHING that the jury could have used to convict and still look themselves in the mirror they would have grabbed at it like a drowning man grabs at anything even somewhat floaty.

Somebody from the prosecutors office really aught to be standing in the un-employment line this morning over this money wasting fiasco.

s

Jake says:

on 7/6/2011 9:04:04 AM

Nobody said that a child didn't die under... rather suspicious... circumstances. What the state failed to do is provide any proof that Casey was the DO-er.

I'll go even further: Without being able to state a cause of death, they could not prove murder or manslaughter. More to the point, they could not disprove her defense that it was an accident and she simply panicked.

I don't see why cause of death is a stumbling block.

Would it really matter whether the poor girl were strangled, poisoned, shot or just beaten to death?

Since her defense was that it was an accidental drowning, yes, it did matter. The state had the burden to prove that it was murder or manslaughter, Casey Anthony did not have any burden to prove the truth of her claims.

Comments have been closed on this topic.

Comments

Archives

Categories

Comments

Archives

Categories

Second Amendment

Sharpest Marbles

Blogroll

Funny, as in Ha-ha

Good Reads

Extended Blogroll

Industry Links