Why do people think they know more than the jury?
Drachen
2011/07/08 19:41:11
Just a simple question, of course this is regarding the Casey Anthony trial, and the O.J. Simpson trial, and all similar trials.
It just bothers me that people are cursing the jury and saying they are murders, when truly they are just going by the facts. There was not enough evidence to convict her. They even wanted to convict her, but couldn't. They are thinking with their rational mind, not their emotions, as many people are...
It just bothers me that people are cursing the jury and saying they are murders, when truly they are just going by the facts. There was not enough evidence to convict her. They even wanted to convict her, but couldn't. They are thinking with their rational mind, not their emotions, as many people are...
Top Opinion
-
Auntie M 2011/07/08 19:54:02
+6Most of them have never been on a jury, or perhaps they don't know that you are not supposed to vote to convict unless the crime was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Maybe they would have voted to convict regardless of the evidence (or lack thereof) just because they "thought" she was guilty, but that is against the rules/law.
Granted some jurists are morons, or couldn't support the death penalty, even if the defendant was Hitler, but if the lawyers & judge do their duty and perform their functions well, then everybody gets it. (Only exception is the infamous OJ jury)
Why do people think they know more than the jury? They don't think they know more, but they do know just as much - the whole damned trial has been televised and rerun, over and over, so everyone knows the evidence the jury had to consider.
Here are facts that are uncontroverted that point to Casey Anthony's guilt of manslaughter, at the very least, and there is no innocent explanation for any one of them:
!. She was the mother of the little girl, Caylee, and responsible for her well-being -- yet when Caylee "went missing" she delayed for a month before telling anyone - it took her mother to phone the police!
2. While her daughter was missing (we now know she was dead all that time!) Casey partied like she didn't have a care in the world - no normal parent, mother or father would do that - they would be devastated and heart-broken to lose a child;
3. After her daughter was finally reported missing Casey Anthony told lie after lie, making up a non-existent "nanny" who she claimed had taken Caylee;
4. There were 84 searches for "chloroform" on the computer in the home (none for chlorophyl!);
5. There was a smell of a decomposing body in the trunk of her car, testified to by her own mother and evidenced b...
Why do people think they know more than the jury? They don't think they know more, but they do know just as much - the whole damned trial has been televised and rerun, over and over, so everyone knows the evidence the jury had to consider.
Here are facts that are uncontroverted that point to Casey Anthony's guilt of manslaughter, at the very least, and there is no innocent explanation for any one of them:
!. She was the mother of the little girl, Caylee, and responsible for her well-being -- yet when Caylee "went missing" she delayed for a month before telling anyone - it took her mother to phone the police!
2. While her daughter was missing (we now know she was dead all that time!) Casey partied like she didn't have a care in the world - no normal parent, mother or father would do that - they would be devastated and heart-broken to lose a child;
3. After her daughter was finally reported missing Casey Anthony told lie after lie, making up a non-existent "nanny" who she claimed had taken Caylee;
4. There were 84 searches for "chloroform" on the computer in the home (none for chlorophyl!);
5. There was a smell of a decomposing body in the trunk of her car, testified to by her own mother and evidenced by a cadaver dog;
6. There were traces of choroform found in the trunk of the car.
7. Duct tape was found on the skull of Caylee Anthony's decomposing body.
Juries are allowed to draw logical inferences from circumstantial evidence, and the circumstantial evidence in this case was overwhelming -- there is no explanation or inference to be drawn from any of the above facts that points to anything but a guilty verdict. Beyond reasonable doubt does not mean beyond all doubt, and they are not allowed to speculate about possible ways in which Caylee died "accidentally' -- there was no evidence present in the trial of an accident.
They should have convicted the woman of manslaughter, at the very least. The statement of the one juror who has spoken, that they didn't know how she died, was nonsense - they didn't have to know how she died, just that she was dead.
As for the OJ trial, I have never understood why the glove test was allowed, or why anyone took that seriously. I was able to see that part on the news. First of all, leather, once it gets wet (blood, water, anything) will shrink. Second, if you have ever tried to put a glove on over a latex glove, it won't fit. No one made those points in OJ's trial, so the prosecution made errors large enough to drive a train through. They are the ones to blame for that acquittal. And if he truly didn't do it, no one's ever bothered to look for someone else to have committed that rime.
I pray emotional hysteria never tears through the civil liberties promised us in the constitution, the day we become guilty until proven innocent, will be a dark one indeed.
I think charges will be brought against the grandparents and or uncle.
In an interview with ABC News, one juror said some of them cried and were sick to their stomachs with the conviction that there just wasn't enough evidence to convict Casey.
the people on the other hand don't need facts to see the obvious. they have nothing to prove. common sense goes a long way.
and abuse of a corpse? if the baby drowned then why hide her body?? a whole lot of questions should have been asked. perhaps the justice system needs to be changed so that the jurors can ask questions of the lawyers.
Ultimately, jury's the only entity with nothing to gain or lose on verdict either way. Sad they're bashed - simply following law to best of ability. Jury shouldn't be faulted for a lack of evidence. They're expected to put aside their opinions and render a verdict based on the facts alone.
Media talking-heads who make a living presuming guilt before innocence - don't help the situation.
I know that someone is gulty, even though it can't be 'proven'... I'm still going to go with guilty on those lesser charges. That way I'm not sending the b*tch to her death, but she's going to pay... because I know she had a part in her kid's death.
You just don't let someone (that you know did it) walk... unless you're an @sshole.
Thank goodness our founders made this a Republic where Law is the ruler whereas a Democracy as the Press and the President want where thug or mob rule is the law of the land.