|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 21, 2011 12:33:20 GMT -5
I sort of agree with you on everything you say, with a few ifs and buts. Johnny Cochrane was (ethically) wrong to make race such a huge aspect, but hadn't several other people already done so? The crowds outside the court, some media, the policeman who made the stupidest of comments possible...
Of course. But it is reasonable for the defence to argue that the prosecution is blinkered and chasing one line of investigation whilst ignoring other very possible explanations. And in doing that the defence must present another possible explanation. So, however annoying it is, it can't really be any other way, can it? Which bits are dumb? the public isn't overly bright, particularly in such cases. the same thing happened with rodney king. the media made it a racial thing when there was NO basis for it whatsoever. the media never bothered to mention the fact that the guy that was with king was also black, and wasn't beaten. they refused to acknowledge that the ONLY reason king got smacked a couple of times was because he refused to do what he was told, and deserved everything that he got. in the simpson case, race had absolutely NO relevance to the case whatsoever. if mark furman was the klan wizard, it wouldn't have had any bearing on the case. there was simply nothing racial about it, except johnnie tossing it in. judge ito should not have allowed anything about race to have been brought up. what the public thinks, or the media says, is totally irrelevant to any court proceeding if the other lines of investigation had any merit at all, of course the defense would be perfectly justified in suggesting an alternative, as long as it was well within the established facts. baez suggesting that caylee anthony drowned in the pool is NOT remotely close to established facts, and he had NO right bringing it into the trial. the primary part of the piece that is dumb is the last paragraph. lawyers are NOT like surgeons, AND there are far too many crimnal defense attorneys who glory in getting acquitals for guilty criminals.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 21, 2011 12:35:25 GMT -5
In very basic pre-schooler terms... what does Napoleonic Law (or Justinian) do so much better than English Law? And if it's at work in Louisiana ... why? ...and how? Continental law is inquisitorial by nature - searching for the truth. English law is confrontational, it is concerned with successful prosecutions and/or getting off. the goal of ALL law is to get to the truth. it is the individuals practicing it that pervert it as you say
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Jun 21, 2011 14:14:43 GMT -5
That said, both are wide open to corruption in different ways. The phrase Italian Law always threatens a fit of the giggles. It has very often been a case of who can bid highest for the magistrates. On the other hand, it's said that relatively minor local trials stopped being heard at the Old Bailey because the jury was so up to it themselves that it wouldn't convict if the Archangel Gabriel presented a video of the crime. There again, Erasmus, quite a few magistrati are propping up highways in southern Italy. The most famous outside Italy are probably Giovanni Falcone and Paolo Borsellino.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jun 22, 2011 4:18:05 GMT -5
But - unless Casey Anthony entered a guilty plea - the defence had to come up with an alternate scenario, didn't it? You've got me thinking now, about the ethics of presenting a narrative that you suspect may be false. I couldn't listen to the trial about Millie Dowler's death because the defence made her parents trawl through every tiny piece of their family life to defend themselves from the accusation that they were so cruel that Millie just ran away. Perfectly normal family ups and downs such as arguments and teenagers feeling moody & unloved were made out to seem hugely dysfunctional. It's insult to injury. Opinion piece comparing the Bellfield & Anthony defence: Judgment day looms for Casey Anthony and Levi Bellfield
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 22, 2011 13:04:59 GMT -5
But - unless Casey Anthony entered a guilty plea - the defence had to come up with an alternate scenario, didn't it? You've got me thinking now, about the ethics of presenting a narrative that you suspect may be false. I couldn't listen to the trial about Millie Dowler's death because the defence made her parents trawl through every tiny piece of their family life to defend themselves from the accusation that they were so cruel that Millie just ran away. Perfectly normal family ups and downs such as arguments and teenagers feeling moody & unloved were made out to seem hugely dysfunctional. It's insult to injury. Opinion piece comparing the Bellfield & Anthony defence: Judgment day looms for Casey Anthony and Levi Bellfieldthat's a pretty good article. the notion that the best defense is a good offense is great for football, but it is not for court. when you start attacking the victim and/or the family, the odds are that you are going to alienate the jury, and they will end up convicting your client just because he would be so despicable as to do that. it's fine to try to come up with an alternative scenario. of course, it's advisable to have a scenario that is at least within the realm of possibility. in the case of casey anthony, not only is the scenario not remotely within the realm of possiblity, it is so far out that there is no way of ever connecting it. of course, we now know that this little scenario actually did happen, except that it happened to a fellow inmate of anthony's. that is going to sink her even further
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jun 22, 2011 15:11:39 GMT -5
I didn't know about the fellow inmate and her story. I am cross now.
It fits in totally with what I was saying about Anthony and her lies being based on something she saw/heard...
If they can be at all sure that Whalen's story got to Anthony, I think it's time to call off the trial and just section Anthony.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 22, 2011 16:19:05 GMT -5
I didn't know about the fellow inmate and her story. I am cross now. It fits in totally with what I was saying about Anthony and her lies being based on something she saw/heard... If they can be at all sure that Whalen's story got to Anthony, I think it's time to call off the trial and just section Anthony. i didn't know about whalen until this morning either. they don't have to prove that casey anthony EVER talked to whalen. just the fact that they were in the same dormitory, and this pool story has popped up as a defense is more than sufficient. casey anthony has already proven that she never thought of the story until she heard it in jail
|
|