|
Post by sadie on Jul 8, 2011 17:40:18 GMT -5
Hmmmmm....guess even the sky wasn't happy with the verdict!! lol
08:17 PM ET
Hours after Casey Anthony learned on Thursday that she will leave jail next week, lightning apparently struck a tree next to a makeshift memorial in honor of her slain daughter, Caylee.
No one saw lightning strike the pine tree on Suburban Drive in Orange County, Florida, where teddy bears and flowers mark the spot where 2-year-old Caylee's remains were found on December 11, 2008.
But long, diagonal strips of exposed wood scarred the tall pine tree, WESH reported, and bits of bark lay scattered across the road.
"It could be a sign from the angels that they aren't happy with what's happened," a visitor to the site told the Orlando Sentinel newspaper. "The rain, the lightning, the storm – it's the heavens indicating they aren't happy."
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Jul 8, 2011 18:07:52 GMT -5
No jumbo, a professional class of juror is a madcap idea. But it is America we are talking about, a madcap nation. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution are you promised or guaranteed a panel that looks just like you: Barby the teacher, Bob the plumber or Diane the journalist. The U.S. Constitution simply assures American citizens a “right of trial by jury.” The right of a person to be tried by a jury of one's peers is traditionally founded on a provision contained in Chapter 29 of that great document of English law, the Magna Carta. I suggest America adopts it. In this case the jury came to a conclusion you neither like nor agree with. If an election goes the way you didn't want it to go will you be calling for professional voters? no, a conclusion is something that is reached after sifting through all of the evidence. it is obvious that this jury didn't bother to do that. professional voters wouldn't be a bad idea, but not feasible. i certainly wouldn't oppose a test to determine that an individual is capable of rational reasoning before voting though. except for louisiana, american laws ARE based on english common law, which came from the magna carta We don't always see all of the evidence that is put before a jury, so second-guessing is a distraction. Professional voters, not a bad idea? I might have known you'd go for that, a very weird idea of democracy. You want to be governed by professional politicians elected by a professional class? There goes your voice and your freedom. Loosely based perhaps.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jul 9, 2011 13:22:33 GMT -5
no, a conclusion is something that is reached after sifting through all of the evidence. it is obvious that this jury didn't bother to do that. professional voters wouldn't be a bad idea, but not feasible. i certainly wouldn't oppose a test to determine that an individual is capable of rational reasoning before voting though. except for louisiana, american laws ARE based on english common law, which came from the magna carta We don't always see all of the evidence that is put before a jury, so second-guessing is a distraction. Professional voters, not a bad idea? I might have known you'd go for that, a very weird idea of democracy. You want to be governed by professional politicians elected by a professional class? There goes your voice and your freedom. Loosely based perhaps. in this particular case, the public saw a lot more evidence than the jury did. under florida's sunshine law, more than twenty-five thousand pages of discovery given to the defense was available to everyone, and much of it was not produced at the trial. professional voters obviously is not a good idea, but, we would be better off. we would not have had to endure eight years of dumbya had the electorate been qualified. everyone knew that dumbya was a liar from the gate, since he had promised the people of texas that he would fulfill his term as governor, then ran for president instead.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jul 9, 2011 16:16:08 GMT -5
The whole trial was televised - live - with an estimated million bloggers detailing anything and everything. As a group, we saw what they saw. And then some. What is more, ''we'' heavily influenced the trial on a daily basis because the defence had a team of people whose job it was to read ''our'' bloggings and twitterings and react to our reactions. An interview published on Law.Com, talking with with one of the team leaders, Amy Singer, says: During the nearly two-month Casey Anthony trial, lead trial consultant Amy Singer would leave the courtroom at the end of each day and head for her computer. There, she and her team would monitor about 40,000 blog items to find out what was annoying people about Anthony—and tailor their defense accordingly.
Singer, who runs the Fort Lauderdale, Fla.-based Singer Cos., said the trial was the first high-profile murder trial to take place in the social media age and will forever change how lawyers defend clients. and Once Singer assured Baez of the necessity of social media, she and her team combed through blogs to isolate the "important negative comments" they felt needed to be addressed.
So when the public began to twitter that it didn't trust George Anthony, the defence team were advised to start ''beefing up'' their attacks on George. "We had to know how much to blame George," she said. Similarly, bloggers "loved" Cindy Anthony until she took credit for the chloroform searches and then began to turn on the defendant's mother. At that point, Singer's team "distanced ourselves" from her and encouraged Baez to take a watered-down position in closing arguments that "at least she had some sort of maternal instinct." What we didn't see, apparently, were the nuances and body language, and the jury would have picked up on that, according to a piece I read. The piece (forgotten which and where now!) talked about -- for example -- George Anthony in the courtroom audience coming across as shifty and fidgety and untrustworthy etc. Juror Number 3 has said she thinks that George was not reliable, was weird, and even was ''there'' when Caylee died. I must admit, I didn't think much of what I saw of him at the trial. Maybe if I'd had a constant view of him I would have felt the same as the jury did.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Jul 9, 2011 16:46:27 GMT -5
We don't always see all of the evidence that is put before a jury, so second-guessing is a distraction. Professional voters, not a bad idea? I might have known you'd go for that, a very weird idea of democracy. You want to be governed by professional politicians elected by a professional class? There goes your voice and your freedom. Loosely based perhaps. in this particular case, the public saw a lot more evidence than the jury did. under florida's sunshine law, more than twenty-five thousand pages of discovery given to the defense was available to everyone, and much of it was not produced at the trial. professional voters obviously is not a good idea, but, we would be better off. we would not have had to endure eight years of dumbya had the electorate been qualified. everyone knew that dumbya was a liar from the gate, since he had promised the people of texas that he would fulfill his term as governor, then ran for president instead. The jury came to a verdict you and many others don't agree with. That's the way it is. It's better to have nine guilty go free than one innocent person convicted. It has to be beyond reasonable doubt. A professional voter class would have elected Bush without a doubt. They'd be PNAC
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jul 10, 2011 14:46:48 GMT -5
in this particular case, the public saw a lot more evidence than the jury did. under florida's sunshine law, more than twenty-five thousand pages of discovery given to the defense was available to everyone, and much of it was not produced at the trial. professional voters obviously is not a good idea, but, we would be better off. we would not have had to endure eight years of dumbya had the electorate been qualified. everyone knew that dumbya was a liar from the gate, since he had promised the people of texas that he would fulfill his term as governor, then ran for president instead. The jury came to a verdict you and many others don't agree with. That's the way it is. It's better to have nine guilty go free than one innocent person convicted. It has to be beyond reasonable doubt. A professional voter class would have elected Bush without a doubt. They'd be PNAC at least the possibility exists that you could be right on the professional voters electing dumbya. not a good possibility however. it was the blue collar people that elected him. you didn't find many intellectuals who ever supported him. most blue collar people are down to earth, but you're right, they do tend to be more right wing. with anthony, it isn't a case of a verdict that i, nor anyone else,don't like. the FACT is that there was NO doubt whatsoever of her guilt, let alone a reasonable one.
|
|