Donald Duck Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 (edited) It's supposed to be "beyond a reasonable doubt," not "beyond a doubt." There may have been some doubt that Casey killed Caylee, but this doubt was by no means reasonable. I think those jurors didn't properly understand this very critical point, but then again what else do you expect from Floridians? Casey should have been sentenced to life in prison, but not the death penalty. Anything else was/is a tragic failure of the United States system of law. Good observation, I unintentionally left out a word, The death penalty in itself is unethical in my opinion because its virtually impossible to deliberate ones guilt without considering the outcome. Thus, expanding upon in ones mind what should/would be considered reasonable doubt. Edited July 9, 2011 by Fig Newton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 The death penalty in itself is unethical in my opinion because its virtually impossible to deliberate ones guilt without considering the outcome. Thus, expanding upon in ones mind what should/would be considered reasonable doubt. Oops, sorry - you were just eliminated from the jury pool for a First Degree Murder trial. But say you made it on. You still haven't convinced me. We're waaaay over 11 hours now. You've reviewed a number of different evidence entries. Why didn't the jury? You've stated it doesn't take all 12 jurors to find the defendant not guilty - I think you're wrong - it takes a unanimous decision either way in a capital crime, otherwise it's a hung jury and a mistrial. Sure you don't want to ask the judge for clarification on that? This jury did not ask a single question, did not review any evidence or testimony, requested not a single clarification on instructions, and wrapped it up in 11 hours. I've spent more time reviewing information and getting "testimony" when deciding on purchases over $100. I would have voted guilty. On the chance 11 agreed with me, I would have slept soundly with that decision. If I were the only one, I would have hung this jury, and there would have been a mistrial. Perhaps that would have been the only decision that would have satisfied everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Duck Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 (edited) Oops, sorry - you were just eliminated from the jury pool for a First Degree Murder trial. But say you made it on. You still haven't convinced me. We're waaaay over 11 hours now. You've reviewed a number of different evidence entries. Why didn't the jury? You've stated it doesn't take all 12 jurors to find the defendant not guilty - I think you're wrong - it takes a unanimous decision either way in a capital crime, otherwise it's a hung jury and a mistrial. Sure you don't want to ask the judge for clarification on that? This jury did not ask a single question, did not review any evidence or testimony, requested not a single clarification on instructions, and wrapped it up in 11 hours. I've spent more time reviewing information and getting "testimony" when deciding on purchases over $100. I would have voted guilty. On the chance 11 agreed with me, I would have slept soundly with that decision. If I were the only one, I would have hung this jury, and there would have been a mistrial. Perhaps that would have been the only decision that would have satisfied everyone. My mistake, you're correct, hung Jury in the U.S. results in a mistrial. Thanks for correcting me Edited July 10, 2011 by Fig Newton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 The death penalty in itself is unethical in my opinion because its virtually impossible to deliberate ones guilt without considering the outcome. Thus, expanding upon in ones mind what should/would be considered reasonable doubt. That's one of the reasons many (if not most) death penalty states have separate hearings in death penalty cases - first the jury hears the case, then if they come back with a guilty plea, the parties get to argue to the jury for and against the penalty. Biggest problem there would be that, to the best of my knowledge, it's the same jury in both phases, which then results in the same bias you describe. Better that there were a different jury for each. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Duck Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 (edited) That's one of the reasons many (if not most) death penalty states have separate hearings in death penalty cases - first the jury hears the case, then if they come back with a guilty plea, the parties get to argue to the jury for and against the penalty. Biggest problem there would be that, to the best of my knowledge, it's the same jury in both phases, which then results in the same bias you describe. Better that there were a different jury for each. Agreed DC Tom, having a different Jury for the sentencing phase makes sense. If I'm not mistaken, an effort to change this procedure in the state of Florida is now underway. Once found guilty, it would be much easier for a different Jury to hear arguments and commence sentencing properly in knowing they were not originally responsible for deciding guilt or innocence. Edited July 9, 2011 by Fig Newton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 I agree with part of your statement, key words, consistent with, just like rotting raw meat would be consistent with decomp Could be wrong but I believe a big part of his testimony was that it wasn't consistent with any food product the defense said could have caused it. But maybe she had some ground beef rotting in her trunk (which would in fact be chemically different still) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Duck Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 (edited) Could be wrong but I believe a big part of his testimony was that it wasn't consistent with any food product the defense said could have caused it. But maybe she had some ground beef rotting in her trunk (which would in fact be chemically different still) Michael Sigman, a chemist at the National Center for Forensic Science, said that air samples from Casey Anthony's car trunk tested positive mainly for gasoline. Chloroform and two other chemicals were present. Michael Sigman: "I could not conclusively determine that the presence of those compounds indicated that there had been human remains in the trunk of that car," Dr Furton: if you are going to state that fluorinated compounds are important indicators of human decomposition and they are not there, then their absence should be interpreted as a human body was not there. Edited July 11, 2011 by Fig Newton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted July 15, 2011 Author Share Posted July 15, 2011 Case of mistaken identity (or just another tin foil hat wearing Okehoman) leads to truck getting rammed. Blackwell, who has a daughter also named Caylee, says when Nalley came into the store she said, "'You look like Casey Anthony,' I'm like, 'OK.'" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 Case of mistaken identity (or just another tin foil hat wearing Okehoman) leads to truck getting rammed. People are out of their friggin minds. Pics of the vehicles in this article. That woman was NOT playing around. http://www.news9.com/story/15084225/woman-mistaken-for-casey-anthony-attacked?clienttype=printable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 People are out of their friggin minds. Pics of the vehicles in this article. That woman was NOT playing around. http://www.news9.com/story/15084225/woman-mistaken-for-casey-anthony-attacked?clienttype=printable That woman was the victim of a terrorist attack, IMHO, and the perpetrator should be treated as such Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 That woman was the victim of a terrorist attack, IMHO, and the perpetrator should be treated as such Police say Nalley seemed to be on drugs when they arrested her. You call it a terrorist attack, watering down the meaning of terrorism. Facts call it another violent pot addict. Yay pot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phlegm Alley Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 Shame that we lost another toddler to suicide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 People are out of their friggin minds. Pics of the vehicles in this article. That woman was NOT playing around. http://www.news9.com/story/15084225/woman-mistaken-for-casey-anthony-attacked?clienttype=printable How long before Vivid offers Sammay Blackwell money to do a "film"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 You call it a terrorist attack, watering down the meaning of terrorism. Facts call it another violent pot addict. Yay pot. Ah, that explains it. She thought she was riding a bicycle, and didn't have to follow any laws, so rammed her... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Jack Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 That woman was the victim of a terrorist attack, IMHO, and the perpetrator should be treated as such Nah, it's a hate crime, but only white people can be tried for hate crimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 You call it a terrorist attack, watering down the meaning of terrorism. Facts call it another violent pot addict. Yay pot. How do you define terrorism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 Nah, it's a hate crime, but only white people can be tried for hate crimes. Not true. Any straight person can be, under the right conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Jack Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 People are out of their friggin minds. Pics of the vehicles in this article. That woman was NOT playing around. http://www.news9.com/story/15084225/woman-mistaken-for-casey-anthony-attacked?clienttype=printable The article says the police had to chase her down, how the heck did that mini van still drive in that condition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 How do you define terrorism? Large groups of people that attack based on ideology. Example: Mormons blowing themselves up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted July 15, 2011 Author Share Posted July 15, 2011 Example: Mormons blowing themselves up. Mormons are likely to blow dry themselves but I think that you've got them confused with another religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts