Well, everybody is mad, and here’s why: That bitch is guilty!
No matter how many lectures are written about this trial and its coverage in the media, if you followed the whole thing from the beginning, you know she’s guilty. If your child drowns, you call the police. You don’t turn up at your boyfriend’s house a few hours later and rent a movie as if nothing happened.
So the question remains: Is this jury just stupid?
I wonder if there’s a reliable source of data on jury selection. I’m cynical enough to believe the old joke about jury duty. If you’re smart and sophisticated, you probably don’t want to get stuck doing jury service and you’ll probably find a way to avoid it.
An acquaintance explained why she hasn’t been following the Casey Anthony trial on TV: So many children are suffering from abuse every single day, it’s improper to spend so much attention on this one incident.
I admire her self-control and her strong sense of moral duty, but I think that people have a need to feel that justice is possible. The shock of seeing O.J. Simpson or Casey Anthony go free, instead of paying for their crimes, derives from this primal expectation of justice.
I hate those parents who enjoy telling their children that “life isn’t fair.” It should be fair! Unfairness should be unacceptable.
It was perversely gratifying to see Casey all dolled-up in court today. She looked like a Ronette or a stripper. Shedding her librarian look so quickly was another slap in the face but it adds to her mystique as a psychopath. I don’t know why I was surprised to learn that there’s at least one website devoted to the trial; If I weren’t already so disgusted with the not-guilty verdict, I might click on the thing about Casey’s preferred snacks from the prison snack-shop or whatever it’s called.
Do you believe that when a jury speaks, justice has been served? Have you avoided jury duty? Do you think the phrase “reasonable doubt” is open to interpretation? And how do you feel about Casey’s hair?
I agree with what Aja said. I gave up television for a reason, mostly to avoid news programs. The ridiculousness of it all. I do read the news sometimes and i have to say it is shameful what happens to children in this world.
It’s certainly not uncommon for a jury to reach a ‘not guilty’ verdict for someone who is clearly guilty, purely on a technicality or two. It’s fucking frustrating, too, and it happens especially in rape cases because they can be so hard to gather enough evidence for. But at the same time, I think the law is more concerned with NOT wrongly convicting innocent people than it is with convicting guilty people, and I guess the alternative would be to lower the standard of evidence required for a conviction, which would of course lead to more wrong convictions.
Juries get it wrong, so do judges. It’s commonly accepted as a ‘fact of life’ but my god it shouldn’t be! It’s so sad when you’re always hearing about these cases in which the very system that was supposed to protect an individual has instead failed them miserably.
‘Queen of Hearts’, what a very sensible, intelligent comment you wrote above, er, have you ever considered an older man? Um, and I do mean ‘old’, like, very old but still, great fun to be with – so long as I get my afternoon nap and go to bed at nine o’clock with a cup of cocoa. Do let m eknow, ‘Big Sis’ won’t mind sharing me with you.
Oi Duff.
What about me?
Andra – Men are dogs, aren’t they??
I’m not up at all (well, because of people such as Nancy Grace, maybe “all” isn’t totally accurate) with the case. But it has been my experience that people, who ‘may, most likely were guilty yet were not proved such, in a specific case’ usually revert to form.
Where’s OJ now?
The prosecution made two errors, 1) going for a death penalty in a case in which it was obvious would be devilishy tedious to prove, 2) not going for a plea.
As for “Justice”? I once overheard a Judge being asked, “Sir, off to administer justice?”
The Judge replied, “Nope. I’m on my way to administer the law.”
Frankly, Andra & SW, I find Mr. Duff’s behaviour apalling…
Men are fickle bastards.
But then, we already knew that, didn’t we?
Andra! Shhhhh! No one was supposed to know about us!
Cricket9, no need to get snippy just because I haven’t made one of my devastatingly smooth advances on you. Stick around, kid, your time could come – er, you are a girl, aren’t you?
From what I’ve read it seems fairly obvious that the prosecution didn’t offer up any physical evidence, and without that the jury really couldn’t convict Casey, no matter how strongly they might have BELIEVED that she was guilty. What’s too bad is that they couldn’t get her on failing to report her child missing.
I would actually like to be selected for a jury (I’ve been called a few times but have never made it to the interview step), but I’m sure I’d be dismissed as soon as they found out I’m a scientist and could actually interpret DNA evidence and such.
Duff, Ms Cricket is much too smart to fall for your smarmy advances.
And furthermore, she has seen the notorious sarong photos!
So when do you not guilty is right call folk go back to the golden oldies of the grassy knoll and we did not go to the moon?
“not GUILTY AS SIN” – Eh???
Hey Sister Wolf – Check this out (Casey looking for babysitting work.)
http://i.imgur.com/H9geb.jpg
I was sick over this verdict for weeks. Actual nightmares.