moreluck
golden ticket member
Casey, next Sunday.............
Anthony Case
- Thread starter moreluck
- Start date
Casey, next Sunday.............
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
As a person of faith, what I know to be true is that, in the end, she will get what she deserves.
We the public will be deprived of the satisfaction of seing it happen....but it will happen.
If she was criminally involved in the death of her child, she will bear that burden for the rest of her life. Over time, that burden will grow heavier and harder to bear. You might be able to buy a favorable verdict thru our justice system, but you cannot buy a clean conscience for any price.
It is also worth pointing out that, although acquitted, she did spend over 3 years in jail and her life has been effectively ruined. Perhaps there is at least a small measure of justice in that.
We the public will be deprived of the satisfaction of seing it happen....but it will happen.
If she was criminally involved in the death of her child, she will bear that burden for the rest of her life. Over time, that burden will grow heavier and harder to bear. You might be able to buy a favorable verdict thru our justice system, but you cannot buy a clean conscience for any price.
It is also worth pointing out that, although acquitted, she did spend over 3 years in jail and her life has been effectively ruined. Perhaps there is at least a small measure of justice in that.
moreluck
golden ticket member
Just a quick question....and don't take it wrong, but did you have to use spell check or look up the word 'conscience' ?? I remember in school, the nuns were always teaching us tricks to remember stuff.......like principal is the head guy at the school (he's your PAL). Ple is the other principle. I never forgot how to spell the two. Conscience was another tricky one........we always just remember con and then science. That stuff sticks with you.
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
I got straight A's in English and creative writing when I was in school, and one year I even won the spelling bee. I was always a real bookworm.
Math and science were more of a struggle for me once I got into high school. They were always scheduled after the lunch hour, which I typically spent in the back seat of a friend's car taking bong hits and listening to Rush.
trplnkl
555
See, that's the broken part of our system. The defense doesn't have to prove their statements to be true and valid. They shouldn't be allowed to make claims that can't be backed up. Saying the milkman could have done it should have to be backed up that the milkman actually could have. In the Anthony case, the "Nanny Zanny" didn't even know the Anthonys and nothing was shown where she even had access to the child, the family home or anything to do with the case. The defense (or the accused) could say "someone else" did it because I didn't. That doesn't point the finger at a specific person with zero proof. IMO, doing that should put the defense in the same boat as the prosecution, prove your accusations. The jury is supposed to make a decision based on the evidence, a wild ass claim is not evidence.
Is it not the job of the prosecution to explain why the defense has put up wild ass claims and in so doing strengthen their own case? If a defendant is to be considered "innocent until being proven guilty" then the burden must by definition be heavier on the prosecution.
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
I don't blame you--you would have to be high to listen to Limbaugh.
menotyou
bella amicizia
Why do I like smartasses? I don't know, but I do!
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
Thank you, memere.
trplnkl
555
That's why I say it is a broken part of the system. It shouldn't be the prosecution's job to disprove lies and baseless innuendos. Shouldn't the defense have to have as much integrity as we demand from the prosecution ? Other wise a crafty liar can get away with murder.
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
That is actually the best part of our system; the presumption of innocence for the defendant, and the burden of proof resting solely on the prosecution.
If the defense does make "wild ass claims", the prosecution has every opportunity to refute them since the defense makes its case first.
Bear in mind that the state has essentially unlimited resources at its disposal to prosecute the defendant, whereas the defendant must usually pay for his/her own attorney and stay in jail if he/she cannot afford to post bond.
Our system is far from perfect, but I would much rather see 10 guilty people go free than to see once innocent person be convicted of a crime they did not commit. Those 10 guilty people are still going to be judged someday, once their time on this earth is done.
SOBER,
Presumtion of innocense does not mean the defense can throw out claims that CANT BE REFUTED. How would you suggest the prosecution REFUTE the claim that George Anthony placed his penis into the mouth of Casey anthony before she went to school?
How does the prosecution REFUTE this without the satisfaction of placing Casey Anthony on the stand? She would be the only other person involved in the charge that could prove or disprove the claim. The prosecution has NO WAY to place Casey on the stand, so a major disadvantage develops.
A presumption of innocence means only that the defendant has a right to say nothing or prove nothing. But what it doesnt mean, is that the defense can throw out stories that will TAINT the jurys minds long before it hears the case and then use innuendo during the trial to further the claim.
You say the prosecution has every opportunity, but the facts prove the prosecution has NO OPPORTUNITY. What if the defense suggested that little green men from mars landed in florida, took caylee, did experiments, placed her in the pool and she drowned, then the martians tossed caylee into the swamp before boarding their space craft and flying back to mars.
How would you suggest the prosecution REFUTED this?
Peace.
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
How about "Objection--assuming facts not in evidence?"
JOSE BAEZ entire opening statement was ASSUMING FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.
Where in the evidence was it ever established that little Caylee's Anthonys death occured on June 16th? Where in the evidence did Jose baez establish who discovered Caylee in the pool? George or Casey? Where in the evidence did the evidence prove who dumped the body in the swamp George or Casey. Where in the evidence was it established who took Caylee OUT of the pool, placed her body somewhere, changed her clothes, bagged and tagged her, placed her into "A" car , drove to the side of the road and dumped her?
Why did Jose Baez admit the child died while in Caseys custody, then the father enter and ASK CASEY where is the child, CASEY answers I DONT KNOW, then they search the home and search the backyard last? Does this make sense? Why would they search the garage first before checking the backyard? Where did the evidence prove that a conspiracy between Casey and her father transpired and both were agreeable to the terms?
These are the kinds of "falsehoods" that should never be allowed in an opening statement without the benefit of being proveable.
This story is just as bad as little green men from mars.
Peace.
Why if in the opening statement, JOSE BAEZ argues that the child died while swimming unsupervised, gives her a death day (June 16th 2008) then goes on to attack the forensic science where the state uses multiple sources to suggest the baby died in june 2008?
Why if the bug expert says the baby dies in June 2008 does the defense try to say thats not true?
Why if the medical examiners best estimation says the child died in June 2008 does the defense say its not true.
Why dies the defense bring in a botanist to say that little Caylee Anthony was in the swamp for as little as 2 weeks? where was she before this if she died on June 16th 2008?
The case was complete crap. The judge let this case get out of control just like Judge Ito did during the OJ Trial.
This is todays high profile justice, confuse the issues, distort the truth, propose nonsense and select the biggest idiots on the face of the earth to analyze the facts.
Peace.
Why if the bug expert says the baby dies in June 2008 does the defense try to say thats not true?
Why if the medical examiners best estimation says the child died in June 2008 does the defense say its not true.
Why dies the defense bring in a botanist to say that little Caylee Anthony was in the swamp for as little as 2 weeks? where was she before this if she died on June 16th 2008?
The case was complete crap. The judge let this case get out of control just like Judge Ito did during the OJ Trial.
This is todays high profile justice, confuse the issues, distort the truth, propose nonsense and select the biggest idiots on the face of the earth to analyze the facts.
Peace.
Well, we should all care. Our system of justice continues to degenerate with cases like this. What if, one of your grandbabies is killed by a son in law, and he goes to trial and now that the Casey Anthony trial shows the way, they use a defense to include you without the benefit of any facts?
Should YOU be put on trial the way George Anthony was?
This has to change.
Peace.
Similar threads
