Skip to main content

If ever there were ever a more heartbreaking victim, Caylee Anthony:

Photobucket

Just two years old.  Missing from her Florida home in June 2008.  Her remains found in a swamp.  Maybe in a garbage bag.

It was (and is) the sort of death that makes your heart break in two just reading about it.

 

We know this: Caylee Anthony died sometime in 2008.  She was two years old.

We do not know much of anything else.

Yesterday, the prime suspect in her death, her mother, Casey Anthony, was acquitted on first degree murder charges in her death.  Ms. Anthony had been held in an Orlando County Jail since 2008 on these charges.  It is likely that, tomorrow, she will walk free.

(Casey Anthony was found guilty yesterday on four counts of lying to the police.  Each of these counts carries with it a maximum sentence of one year in jail.  As she has already been in jail for three years, awaiting her trial on first degree murder charges, it is likely that the Judge will release her tomorrow on time served.)

Anyone who has watched television during the last 24 hours may fear for her safety.

Casey Anthony was acquitted yesterday of all charges related to the death of her daughter.

The jury that had given up their jobs, had been sequestered, had patiently listened to all the evidence presented to them by the State of Florida decided that the State of Florida had not met its burden.  They decided that the State had not proved how little Caylee died or where or when or who was with her or if anyone was legally responsible.

That jury did the right thing.

However emotionally compelling this case was, however much we would love to have a perpetrator -- there just isn't (or wasn't) one here.

In his closing arguments, defense lawyer Jose Baez noted that what the State had tried to show was that Casey Anthony was a "slut" or a "liar."  The evidence in the case certainly showed that she was a liar, but being a liar doesn't make you a murderer . . . and I'll not comment on the "slut" evidence . . . because I will never presume to imagine what Casey Anthony was thinking either before or after her daughter died.

One thing I do know, however, is that the jury in this case got it right.

My Mom, who has watched the case every day for weeks on the Orlando Sentinel's live coverage, and who has served on five juries, has said that the State of Florida did not meet their burden.  And it was, of course, entirely up to the State to prove every element of murder.  So many people forget, so often, particularly in a case involving the death of a child, that the State still must prove the elements of murder in order to provide the basis for a conviction.  It does not matter -- and it should not -- whether we like or do not like the supposed perpetrator.

The reaction to the verdict -- which was, given the evidence presented -- exactly the right verdict was perhaps understandable.  People wanted someone to blame for the death of the adorable child whose remains were found in a swamp.

I understand this.

But, however understandable the anger is, we must not blame the jury.

We need to stand behind this jury.

They are ordinary Americans who have been sequestered for nearly two months and who did their duty -- and, in my opinion, arrived at the correct verdict.

They are being flayed:

These jurors are disgusting! Simply disgusted and outraged at their idiocy! She admits the child died and you give her a free pass and fail to put the pieces of the puzzle together. You ignorant IGNORANT FOOLS!!!
YOU DO NOT NEED A MANNER OF DEATH TO KNOW THAT IT WAS A HOMICIDE!!! SHE WENT UNREPORTED FOR OVER 31 DAYS AND SHE WAS WRAPPED IN GARBAGE BAGS AND THROWN INTO A DAMN SWAMP TO ROT! ARE YOU SO STUPID THAT YOU BELEIVE THIS COULD POSSIBLY BE A NATURAL OR ACCIDENTAL DEATH??????? DID SHE ACCIDENTALLY GET WRAPPED AND DUMPED? YOU MUST BE A JUROR....
My Forensic Psychology professor in college said that people who are selected to be on juries have a lack of a formal education (also a lack of critically evaluating all the info) and don't have very prestigious jobs. After reading the profiles of these jurors, I can definitely say that my professor was right. Perhaps this is what led to their ridiculous verdict.
Well its obvious they chose Jury that are not very educated, they probably couldnt even comprehend what the state was saying, and being that Jose Biaz speaks as though he does not have much of an education they found it easier to side with him. This Jury will have to meet their maker one day and they can be judged for doing the wrong thing just to benefit their needs.

Source ~ PEOPLE

There are multiple other sources for this sort of hatred leveled at these jurors -- this is just a sample from PEOPLE magazine of all places.

Seriously?  

Those who give up their time and family obligations and jobs to serve on juries in important cases deserve our thanks and praise.

And as for the jurors in this emotionally charged case -- Thank You.

And to them, also, you got it right.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Thank you, jurors (224+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FrugalGranny, aoeu, twigg, tgypsy, Glen The Plumber, sceptical observer, jayden, MKSinSA, psyched, TBug, greatferm, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, Mother Mags, Bionic, deha, Jack K, Pam from Calif, Samer, Ekaterin, GoldnI, davis90, Kentucky Kid, grover, pfiore8, MartyM, greycat, shenderson, sebastianguy99, kbman, Seldom Seen, 4Freedom, wsexson, DudleyMason, jan4insight, Rick Aucoin, Cassandra Waites, congenitalefty, LordMike, mbayrob, mama jo, Wes Lee, albrt, justalittlebitcrazy, phaktor, KVoimakas, Superskepticalman, frankzappatista, soros, HiKa, Mnemosyne, Idgie Threadgoode, happymisanthropy, mjfgates, SoCalJayhawk, YaNevaNo, CherryTheTart, vacantlook, gchaucer2, triv33, MBNYC, Texknight, psychodrew, DaNang65, erush1345, annrose, Getreal1246, nyceve, Onomastic, gizmo59, Lawdog, snackdoodle, BMarshall, mmacdDE, mamamedusa, SneakySnu, alicia, Preston S, envwq, Albatross, JanL, SoCalLiberal, feeny, nominalize, kkjohnson, Matilda, Otteray Scribe, falina, gulfgal98, Tempus Figits, milkbone, coldwynn, surfbird007, Steve In DC, copymark, lunachickie, milofischi, drnononono, kerflooey, Floja Roja, Debbie in ME, Colorado is the Shiznit, lineatus, eeff, husl piper 11, Skaje, dirkster42, Vita Brevis, jadt65, zerelda, Lost Left Coaster, Pithy Cherub, FindingMyVoice, Kitsap River, SpamNunn, dotsright, skod, wolverinethad, Diogenes2008, terrypinder, boofdah, fiddler crabby, jentwisl, juliesie, bsmechanic, bronte17, Remembering Jello, yellow cosmic seed, happy camper, Sychotic1, high uintas, cap76, Renee, texasmom, edsbrooklyn, esquimaux, DarkestHour, antimony, IPLawyer, trashablanca, MikeMaloney, ridgerunner, vcmvo2, Dump Terry McAuliffe, eyesoars, Flying Goat, Larin, vets74, peregrine kate, One Pissed Off Liberal, oblios arrow, Youffraita, diane101, PeterHug, wader, Corporate Dog, MKinTN, tabbycat in tenn, New Mexico Dem, mungley, techno, smash, MichiganChet, dwahzon, Joe Bob, LaughingPlanet, buddabelly, Dom9000, sawgrass727, Brooke In Seattle, tidalwave1, SingularExistence, bewareofme, Boris Godunov, dannyinla, mikeconwell, TomFromNJ, asterkitty, DaveVH, FarWestGirl, HeartlandLiberal, Sanuk, DWG, mconvente, JonBarleycorn, HudsonValleyMark, Geek of all trades, Alfred E Newman, Nulwee, murphy, Seneca Doane, Lying eyes, PBen, JayBat, Daily Activist, LSmith, NM Ray, tin woodswoman, Prognosticator, maggiejean, LaFeminista, myadestes, wiscmass, llbear, Unknown Quantity, Killer of Sacred Cows, cpresley, metal prophet, eataTREE, neil, DavidW, Ice Blue, a gilas girl, TimmyB, legendmn, FiredUpInCA, kurt, Jersey Joe, frostieb, denise b, blue book, Debby, Nowhere Man, CTLiberal, greeseyparrot

    Thank you for giving up so much time to listen and weigh the evidence presented to you in this case.  Thank you for considering all of the evidence and returning what you believed to be a just verdict.

    PROUD to be a Democrat.

    by noweasels on Wed Jul 06, 2011 at 09:51:43 PM PDT

    •  Thank you for posting this (58+ / 0-)

      The media gets everyone all hyped up about a case and then the ill-informed public wants vigilante justice from the jury.

      I wish people would learn that just because you feel for the victim of a crime doesn't mean the law should go out the window.

      There was a case up here where a cute little girl was murdered and the next door neighbour boy (young man) was charged and convicted. Turned out he didn't do it, but plenty of people were ready to hang him.

      Over the years I have seen others. If the jury system isn't allowed to work then what have we got?

      Social media consultant for small and local business MoLoSo

      by Bionic on Wed Jul 06, 2011 at 10:28:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thank you, Bionic (24+ / 0-)

        I so completely understand the emotions in this case (and in the case you mentioned) -- but having that understanding makes me even more grateful for the level-headed members of this jury.  I am so grateful to them for discharging their duty so well.

        PROUD to be a Democrat.

        by noweasels on Wed Jul 06, 2011 at 10:35:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  good diary noweasels (24+ / 0-)

          I think the jury made a very courageous, if unpopular decision.  No one is saying this lady is innocent, but the prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt their case.

          Here's the truly awful thing, Sean Hannity was saying the same thing last night.  I agreed with him, he was actually making some sense.

          The jury did the right thing despite the fact that a likely killer will be set free.

          •  And that's the point (21+ / 0-)

            if you're going to lock somebody up for the rest of their lives or even worse, execute them, you need to be SURE.

            DAMN sure.

            The jury wasn't. They might have been sure she lied, and they might have been sure the child died a horrible death, but they weren't sure her mother killed her.

            And if they're not sure, they're not supposed to convict. It's that simple.

            •  I mostly agree, but one little quibble (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ezdidit, kurt

              They actually don't have to be sure to convict, by which I mean that the jury doesn't have to be 100% certain of a defendant's guilt to convict. The standard is that the state has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond any doubt.

              So, for example, imagine that Casey Anthony confessed her guilt at some point to the police and that an eyewitness reported seeing someone who fit her description dumping what turned out to be the body. At trial, the defense argued that the confession was coerced and got the witness to admit s/he couldn't be 100% positive the person s/he saw was Casey Anthony, only that that person fit her description -- maybe they were the same approximate height, weight, hair and skin color, gender, etc. That jury could very well conclude that they couldn't be 100% certain Casey Anthony was guilty, but that their doubts don't rise to the level of "reasonable doubt." Accordingly, they could convict. And given that kind of evidence, they'd probably be right to do so.

              But that kind of evidence wasn't presented in the actual case, and the state had three years to come up with it. So if Casey Anthony did get away with murdering her daughter, it's not the jury's fault; they did their job exactly the way they're supposed to do it. The state, however, screwed up. And that's on them, not the jury.

              Do you suppose Republican politicians hate people who work for a living because they've never done it themselves?

              by wiscmass on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 10:45:07 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Believing that someone is guilty and having the (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Prognosticator, Ice Blue, kurt

          evidence to prove it are totally different things. I was on a jury in a capital case and there was space between what we believed and what the DA proved. Luckily the evidence clearly showed the defendant was guilty on the main count, so we didn't end up having to do what this jury did. But we took our obligation seriously and would have if the state hadn't proven it sufficiently. In the first case I sat on, the state totally blew it, didn't even come close to making a case and shouldn't have ever brought it. We set that kid free because he was innocent, but we couldn't give him back the job he lost or the 8 months he sat in jail waiting for us to do our job.

          I feel for the jury, this isn't like the Rodney King verdict where there was bias involved. Ms Anthony is scot free because the state lacked enough foundation to make their case. That's the state's fault, not the jury's.

          Casey Anthony was an unfit parent and I hope she doesn't have any other kids. She was forced to have Caylee as punishment for being promiscuous, even when she knew she didn't want to be a mother. If she'd been allowed to have an abortion, none of this would have happened.

          Information is abundant, wisdom is scarce. The Druid

          by FarWestGirl on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 09:48:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  agreed (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sura 109, kurt

          I'm so pissed off at media coverage of sensational trials, I keep hoping people like Nancy Grace will have to go out and get a real job someday.

          the reason we have trail by jury is so we can avoid "judgment by mob".

          mobs, whether actual or virtual, tend to forget that.

          Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

          by a gilas girl on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 11:06:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  The media in Orlando (21+ / 0-)

        has been beyond shameful about this from the very beginning. All during that trial, they kept throwing out red meat to the audience--basically "proving" Casey Anthony was a less-than-stellar human being. Not to mention they fell all over themselves to convince their viewers that she was guilty.

        It's no damn wonder people are so pissed off, but the fact of the matter is, that jury never heard all that red meat, and with good reason.  None of it was relevant to this case.  

        what the State had tried to show was that Casey Anthony was a "slut" or a "liar."

        Because this fucked-up state thinks that if you're a slut or a liar, that proves you murdered someone. If these citizens should be pissed off at anyone, they should be pissed off at the clown brigade calling themselves the prosecution. They tried to show that Anthony was a slut or a liar because they didn't have jackshit else to show.

        That being said, I hope these clowns do what they should have done all along--further investigate Casey's father.

        REPEAL the Telecomm Act & REVIEW this decision. NO journalist should be fired because their boss can't have the truth told.

        by lunachickie on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 06:47:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  and there you have it... this was the case where (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Bionic, lunachickie, FarWestGirl

          this man, the father, molested Casey when she was younger? And didn't they say that he could have been Caylee's father?

          I haven't followed this story closely.

          And Casey and Caylee lived with him. And he was a former detective so he knew how to hide things.

          Why didn't the police or the prosecuting attorney pursue this information?


          I have spread my dreams under your feet; Tread softly, because you tread on my dreams. --William Butler Yeats

          by bronte17 on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 07:36:00 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Bionic, wader, AnnieR, milton333
            And didn't they say that he could have been Caylee's father?

            They disproved this with DNA evidence.

            •  okay. So once they proved that he hadn't (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              lunachickie, FarWestGirl

              fathered Caylee... why did that then make the molestation issue just disappear?

              That would have a bearing on the murder of a little girl. It's legitimate probable cause.

              And not so much the conservative rationalization that the "slutty mother" wanted the little girl out of her way so the mother could party.

              This prosecution let an entire avenue of investigation just fall by the wayside because of their warped perspective.


              I have spread my dreams under your feet; Tread softly, because you tread on my dreams. --William Butler Yeats

              by bronte17 on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 08:04:03 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  THANK you (0+ / 0-)
                why did that then make the molestation issue just disappear? That would have a bearing on the murder of a little girl. It's legitimate probable cause.

                In Florida, if you get a tattoo, you're a slut, particularly if your daddy is an ex-cop. That was enough for the freakshows that run "law" in various jurisdictions in this state.

                REPEAL the Telecomm Act & REVIEW this decision. NO journalist should be fired because their boss can't have the truth told.

                by lunachickie on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 08:54:12 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  ASDF (0+ / 0-)
                fathered Caylee... why did that then make the molestation issue just disappear?

                It didn't, necessarily. It's obviously possible to be molested and not get impregnated. But there was no other evidence of this alleged molestation. Casey apparently claims this, but didn't testify at trial. without that, what reason is there to believe that this is true. The only real evidence, in the form of testimony, is a denial.

                It's entirley possible for both things to be true. That she was molested and she killed her child.  As I have posted elsewhere, it's not binary. It's not like proving or even suggesting that George Anthony is/was a child molester is the rosetta stone to this case.

              •  ... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Pozzo

                "fathered Caylee... why did that then make the molestation issue just disappear?"

                No evidence was entered to support this assertion made during the defense's opening statement.  Opening statements are not evidence.  The defense introduced this (fraudulently, IMHO) but never submitted one shred of evidence or testimony by anyone that this ever occurred.  Additionally, tapes of the defendant's jail conversations with her parents and written notes to cell mates contradict the defendants claim of parental abuse.

                I'm surprised by the strong opinions of people who do not know about what they are writing.  I guess everyone can have an opinion, regardless of whether it's an informed one or not.

                •  And how precisely does one "produce evidence" (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  lunachickie

                  of molestation in the privacy of a child's home? Where they are supposedly in a "safe" place from predators... only the predator lives within and has free access to the child.

                  How do you prove that?

                  Ah... you will say that teachers or clergy will be the confidants of such information. And if not... then it is only "hearsay" from the child of the abuse.

                  Like I said... I did not follow this case. Quickly caught a few things on here about it.

                  And the defense made the decision that this avenue was a waste of time. Valuable time that they didn't have to throw away during this trial. So, it wasn't presented because it wasn't necessary.

                  Doesn't mean the molestation didn't have happen and didn't play a role in the horrors of life for this little girl.


                  I have spread my dreams under your feet; Tread softly, because you tread on my dreams. --William Butler Yeats

                  by bronte17 on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 10:28:40 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  she could have testified to it (0+ / 0-)

                    That would have been evidence. But of course, given that she's got a lousy reputation for truth and veracity, that would have been a disaster in all liklihood.

                    •  ah yes... so the slut has no honor (0+ / 0-)

                      and it's worthless to put her up on the stand to testify to the abuse.

                      That's exactly the attitude that the defense attorney knew was in that community and he didn't want to push the evidence up that mountain of bigotry.


                      I have spread my dreams under your feet; Tread softly, because you tread on my dreams. --William Butler Yeats

                      by bronte17 on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 12:39:09 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  No (0+ / 0-)

                        She just has no credibility. Making up nannnies, boyfriends and jobs will tend to hurt your credibility. Has nothing to do with her alleged sex life.

                        •  It has everything to do with her (0+ / 0-)

                          background and the home life she endured.

                          And I have no grounding about any of this... not what she said or didn't say or why. Simply read that she had been molested as a child and it had continued into her adult life. And that she and her child lived with the molester... her father.

                          And you do not know the why either. And you most likely don't care.

                          She didn't so much have a sex life as she escaped from the sordidness of her life through self-destruction. It happens to the people who endure sexual molestation as children. They have limited amounts of self-esteem.

                          Of course, that's all liberal goobledy gook to you.


                          I have spread my dreams under your feet; Tread softly, because you tread on my dreams. --William Butler Yeats

                          by bronte17 on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 02:12:35 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  You've got no evidence of this (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Sparhawk

                            at all. it's quite possible to lie and steal without having been molested.

                            And I have no grounding about any of this... not what she said or didn't say or why. Simply read that she had been molested as a child and it had continued into her adult life. And that she and her child lived with the molester... her father.

                             So you simply read this? And have no evidence to back it up.

                            It happens to the people who endure sexual molestation as children. They have limited amounts of self-esteem.

                            It does happen to them. And of course it would be a blow to your self esteem. but theres zero evidence that this happened and more importantly, zero evidence of this admitted into evidence at trial. You aren't allowed to pull theories out of your ass and call them facts just because they fit conveniently with sympathy toward someone.
                          •  Too many people invested a week or two (0+ / 0-)

                            (or whatever) into the TV show drama trial where this young woman was hung out to dry before those folks who have nothing better to do with themselves than be led on an emotional leash.

                            I've repeatedly said what I read and it was that the young mother was molested growing up by her father (who was a detective). And he continued to molest her as a young adult. And she had a child.

                            None of that was pulled out of my ass. It was printed somewhere and I quickly read it. But, that's about it. I haven't kept up with the sordid details of the trial.

                            I also said... and it is a fact... that the defense is hamstrung by the community in which the trial is based. And this community may have been a backwater conservative cesspool for all I know. No clue.

                            Either way... the little girl who is dead is not served by the TV drama that used her death for its own ratings. And is flaming the passions of the TV-land emotional boobs who have been told that the murderous mother is now going to get $3Million from those liberal Hollywood filmmakers.  

                            Nor does the conservative mindset of "judgment day" and "meet your maker" serve justice to a guilty party who knew exactly how to get away with murder. And so it continues across communities and states and the world that little children suffer because of bigotries of their world.


                            I have spread my dreams under your feet; Tread softly, because you tread on my dreams. --William Butler Yeats

                            by bronte17 on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 07:33:49 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Reading something somewhere (0+ / 0-)

                            Doesn't mean that  it is true:

                            I've repeatedly said what I read and it was that the young mother was molested growing up by her father (who was a detective). And he continued to molest her as a young adult. And she had a child

                            I've read that Barak Obama was not born in this country and won't release his birth certificate, because it was from Kenya. I've read that Vince Foster was murdered. Reading something without any evidence to back it up doesn't make it true and isn't an excuse for repeating it as if it were.

                             

                            also said... and it is a fact... that the defense is hamstrung by the community in which the trial is based
                            .
                            This is not a fact. This is your opinion. Perhaps it would have been a disaster for the defense to have the jury picked in Orlando. This is why it was picked from outside. The law does have protections for defendants like Casey Anthony. In this case, it may well have worked. Casey won, essentially, save for the misdemeanor convictions. In what sense was her defense "Hamstrung?"
                          •  my gawd... you are one of the people who (0+ / 0-)

                            has so much of your life wrapped up in this sensationalist trial. And you are pissed as hell that the woman was not drawn and quartered on the spot after the jury found her guilty.

                            FOX really riled the zombies up on this one.


                            I have spread my dreams under your feet; Tread softly, because you tread on my dreams. --William Butler Yeats

                            by bronte17 on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 08:30:24 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I didn't even watch it (0+ / 0-)

                            It's a legitimate news item, which I have paid attention to. But you keep making unsubstantiated and in some cases demontrably false ones (i.e. about parenthood of Caylee) about a case you admit you didn't pay much attention to and they get upset when someone calls you on your bullshit. What is your point here?
                            Am I pissed as heel

                            And you are pissed as hell that the woman was not drawn and quartered on the spot after the jury found her guilty.

                            This is just histrionic nonsense. I don't want to see anyone, not even a serial killer "Drawn and quartered", even figuratively. Yes, I believe that Casey Anthony committed murder. She is THE most logical suspect for this murder and there's is evidence that she did it. It was a circumstantial case, but a case nevertheless. The state lost. I accept that legally. Casey's free to live La Vita Bella now.  But it doesn't mean that the Casey, the jury or anyone supporting her or this verdict is above criticism.  I don't know  you find this so hard to grasp.

                            FOX really riled the zombies up on this one.

                            I don't watch Fox. And how does someone rile up a "zombie", anyway?
                          •  My comment on the parenthood of Caylee was (0+ / 0-)

                            a question.

                            It asked a question. And someone filled in the blank there to answer the question and said a DNA test was conducted.

                            But, you had to get on your high horse to beat down any possible line of reasoning that questioned the dysfunction of the family.

                            You have proven that you are one of illogical outraged ones who are furious that this woman was not convicted as charged and set free.


                            I have spread my dreams under your feet; Tread softly, because you tread on my dreams. --William Butler Yeats

                            by bronte17 on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 12:22:28 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  spare me (0+ / 0-)

                            It was a question, at least in form.  "Have you stopp beating your wife?" is a question, too.  You've made it clear you are convinced of something for which zero evidence has been provided.  BTW: I was the one who provided you the answer.

                            But, you had to get on your high horse to beat down any possible line of reasoning that questioned the dysfunction of the family.

                            Not at all. I think it's pretty obvious the family was/is dysfunctional. Probably to a large degree. In and of itself, this proves nothing.  It's highly possible for (1) the Anthony family to be dysfunctional and (2) for Casey Anthony to be the killer of Cayle. You rant about "dysfunction" as if it were some magical formula that would obviate any possible guilt on Casey's part. It is not. It is even possible that her father and brother molestered her and that she is the one who killed Cayle.
                            You have proven that you are one of illogical outraged ones who are furious that this woman was not convicted as charged and set free
                            .
                            An ironic charge, to say the least, from someone foaming at the mouth about "Dysfunction", as if this somehow proves everything or even anything. I am not furious about the verdict. I am saddened by it and by people like you, with zero ability to think logically about this case in any sense. I am frustrated by people like who who keep making unfounded allegations and then shriek hysterically at anyone who deigns to challenge you on them.
                      •  It's not bigotry (0+ / 0-)

                        To discredit the testimony of someone who's own attorney said uses lying as a defense mechanism. When your own advocate says you cannot be trusted, why should any juror?

                  •  "produce evidence" (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Pozzo

                    Indirect evidence might have included:
                    -affidavit from a counselor, teacher, priest or anyone else the victim told or witnessed indicators of abuse
                    -sworn statement from the victim on details (when/where/frequency)
                    -medical exam results indicating abuse

                    My point was that the defense made a horrific accusation during its opening statement without introducing any evidence that the offense ever occurred.  Defense attorney Baez asked the defendant's father if he abused the defendant and the father denied it.  Apparently, an baseless accusation can be made without offering any supporting evidence.  

                    People who didn't follow the case seemed to have honed in on what appears to have been misdirection introduced by the defense.  

          •  it was not proven that (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            snackdoodle, bronte17, peregrine kate

            there was no molestation. Or other dysfunction.

            And yes, he was an ex detective, so you better believe he knew how to cover his ass.

            REPEAL the Telecomm Act & REVIEW this decision. NO journalist should be fired because their boss can't have the truth told.

            by lunachickie on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 07:45:21 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Ok fine, but WHO DID IT?? (0+ / 0-)

        Anyone else a suspect?  Who is going to look for the "real killer" just like O.J. was going to look for the "real killers.?  A little girl is murdered, but nobody will EVER be held responsible?  I agree the State did not prove it's theory....but ok, then what now?  Is Caylee ever going to get justice?  Or do we move on?

        Ignorance is the curse of God; knowledge is the wing wherewith we fly to heaven. William Shakespeare

        by lutznancy on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 11:35:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Prosecutor was a fool for seeking death penalty. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JanL, TomFromNJ

      Manslaughter would have been a slam
      dunk.

      A Catholic, Jew, Muslim and Buddhist walk into Al Aqsa Mosque. Buddhist immediately exclaims: "excuse me I appear to be in the wrong joke."

      by Salo on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 05:53:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Thank you from someone who has been there (36+ / 0-)

      I served two months on a sequestered jury on Austin Gay murder case for a multiple charge case, including murder, with four defendants.  We found three of the four defendants guilty of many of the charges, but not of murder.  The fourth defendant, we found not guilty of all charges.  After the trial, I kept asking myself why he was even charged.  There was not one bit of evidence to even connect him.

      After the trial was over, I heard a lot of criticism from friends and associates over our not guilty on murder verdict.  The state simply failed to prove that charge, but many people only understand what they hear in the news.  One of my co-workers made a scrapbook of newspaper clippings of the case while I was on the jury. When I read them, I could understand why some people thought we reached the wrong verdict.  Further, in this case, people have allowed their emotions to prevail over the facts and rule of law applicable to the jury.

      Based upon my own experience, every person on my jury took their charge very seriously.  Our verdicts were reached after three days of methodical deliberation and going over all the evidence.  And we were of one voice.  No shouting or arguing as depicted in the movies.  Being on a 24/7 sequestered jury for two months is no party.  

      I am so glad that someone has taken up for the jury.  I did on Facebook and was severely criticized for it.  Thank you from someone who was once there.

      More tax cuts would be gluttony in a time of starvation. That is not America. That is a nation about to be plundered, and a people laid to waste. - Charles Blow

      by gulfgal98 on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 06:34:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  why was he charged? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gulfgal98, Ice Blue, kurt

        Regarding the person you found not guilty on all counts: You’re wondering why he was charged with anything at all?

        Who is to say what prosecutors really believe, but it sure as hell looks like they occasionally bring charges against innocent people for the purpose of coercing them into cooperating with the prosecution. The implications of this are pretty ugly. A person in such circumstances needs a spine of steel (and an excellent defense attorney) to take their chances with a jury. People who don’t have that fortitude (or money) provide what the prosecutor wants, truth be damned.

        People think this corruption and abuse of power is a rarity in our system, but it isn’t. A good friend of mine was prosecuted in a highly-publicized federal drug trafficking case. He had nothing but a legit business relationship with the main defendant in the case, and my friend was acquitted at trial. The jury actually made a statement rebuking the prosecution because their evidence was so weak it made their ulterior motive for the charges totally transparent.

        Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx

        by Joe Bob on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 08:56:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  My guess is (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kurt

          that he had links to one or more of the defendants.  He was also the only one with a prior criminal record. However, no evidence of his involvement was presented.  The only evidence presented was by the defendant's attorney (who was court appointed) in the form of three alibi witnesses  which honestly did not factor into our verdict of not guilty.  

          I do not believe that corruption figured into this.  It was more likely a case of whatever evidence they had may have been ruled insufficient to be presented to the jury.  

          It took us only about 10 minutes of our three days of deliberation to find him not guilty.

          More tax cuts would be gluttony in a time of starvation. That is not America. That is a nation about to be plundered, and a people laid to waste. - Charles Blow

          by gulfgal98 on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 09:20:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  The top-rated morning show here is doing the same (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      diane101, wader, mconvente, sargoth, cpresley

      Lots of awful invective, just trashing them, compared them to Idiocracy.

      And then the idiots outside the courthouse with signs calling the jurors murderers! Jesus Christ on a bike.

      People are going to eventually become scared to not convict people, and then fascism will take hold in this nation when it happens. I dread that day.

      I will respect the Republican Party the day they decide to start respecting all Americans....therefore, I will never respect the Republican Party.

      by wolverinethad on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 07:21:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  How to get away with murder (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pozzo, moira977, milton333, Quege

      I don't know if the verdict was the correct one or not.  I didn't spend any time watching the day to day proceedings.

      As a parent, I do know this.  Casey Anthony had something to do with the death of her child.  She didn't report her missing for over a month.  She only reported her as missing after her parents were called to pick up the car Casey had been driving and discovered it smelled like death.  She told numerous lies to prevent her parents from knowing where she was.  I don't even care that she was out clubbing during that time...she didn't report her as missing for over a month and probably never would have if not confronted by her parents.  

      If the verdict was correct, she just showed how to get away with murder.  Hide the body and then delay a search for the body so that, by the time it is found, it's so badly decomposed it's impossible to tell the cause of death.

      The one thing this does show is that the death penalty can often prevent justice.  If Florida didn't have a death penalty, I'm pretty sure the jury would have convicted her.  No one wants to put a pretty white girl to death unless they have video of her committing the crime.  Without a smoking gun, they'll always have reasonable doubt.  

      •  Read the article I linked to... (0+ / 0-)

        ...just after your comment below.

        The death penalty wasn't a factor in the deliberations.  And, I believe, they had the option of life with parole.

        •  Thanks (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Pozzo, AmenRa, Ice Blue

          I stand corrected on that.  

          Again, I don't know if the jury made the right decision or not based on the evidence presented but I do know that Casey Anthony got away with the death of her daughter.  You don't do the things she did unless you had something to hide.

          I don't think the jury should be scorned and I don't think the majority of Americans do either.  I do think the majority of Americans believe she got away with murder.  

        •  Death Penalty was a factor in jury selection (0+ / 0-)

          Prospective jurors were limited to those that believed in applying the death penalty.  

          To date there have only been two white females executed in Florida.  Conclude what you will.

      •  no disrespect intended here... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Brigid Nelson, denise b

        ...but an observation:

        your "as I parent, I know this..." formulation offers more trouble than insight in situations like this.

        I, too am a parent and I find myself increasingly wary of any who uses this as a basis to make judgements about other people's behavior as parents, or in relation to something where their status as a parent may be correlated.

        this is the same kind of logic that underlies a great deal of the anti-choice and anti-woman rhetoric of the right.  it is also incredibly normative and almost immediately closes off the possibility of understanding that situations of parenting are as myriad as are the numbers of parents in the world and no single individual of us can ever understand the full range of those experiences.  So, using our own normative expectations to make judgements about others responses in situations that we assume we understand but don't or may not actually is really, really problematic to my mind.

        As a parent, am I disturbed by the bits of information I have about what happened to that child and how her mother did or did not react?  You bet your life I am.  I am also disturbed by that as a human being.  But neither my status as a parent or as a human being provides me with enough insight to really make complete sense of that situation based on the limited information provided.

        I believe that we all fall far too easily into that trap that our parenting and our parental responses are, or should be universal, when in reality they are all particular and contextual and none of us are in a position of completely objective judgment.   The normative biases that parents too easily take up can be very dangerous as tools of political, legal or philosophical analysis.  

        Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

        by a gilas girl on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 11:20:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Juror #2 speaks (13+ / 0-)

      The St. Petersburg Times published the results of an interview with one of the jurors.  His comments coincides with the essence of your diary.

      Was Casey Anthony guilty of first-degree murder?

      "Everybody agreed if we were going fully on feelings and emotions," the juror said, "she was done."  But the 12 jurors from Pinellas County knew that feelings and emotions alone were not enough to decide the fate of the young Orlando mother ...

      "We just wanted to go on the evidence that was presented to us," he said.  But there just wasn't enough evidence to convict the mother of murder,  ...

      "I just swear to God …," he said, his voice falling silent, overcome by tears. "I wish we had more evidence to put her away. I truly do …

      "But it wasn't there."

      I tip my hat that they were so diligent with their duties.  Would it be the case that voters would take their responsibilities as seriously when they enter a voting booth.

      Do read the article for more info because there was debate about lesser charges.

      •  I have a friend who was a jury (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        a gilas girl

        on a case that got minor news coverage, and moderate violence associated with it, and remember the emotional strain it put on her. I can't imagine what it would be like to be on the jury of a mega-case.

        The jury has my respect for what they went through as being part of the trial, and per the the statement above, for working at being a fair jury.

        "All things are not equally true. It is time to face reality." -Al Gore

        by Geek of all trades on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 09:46:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Thank you for pointing out the obvious (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cpresley, TimmyB, kurt

      Liar does not mean murderer.

      I also see quite a bit of bread-and-circuses in the media hype surrounding this case. Too many people whom you quoted in your diary are focused on minutiae instead of on the real world, and the Powers That Be want it that way. It's sick.

      Calling it "Playing Devil's Advocate" still doesn't excuse defense of evil beliefs, opinions, and actions.

      by Killer of Sacred Cows on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 10:34:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What about this case has significance nationally? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kurt

      Help me understand why so much attention should be focused on a case that to me seems its a local news story.

      Plutocracy too long tolerated leaves democracy on the auction block, subject to the highest bidder ~ Bill Moyers

      by Lefty Coaster on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 10:50:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Okay (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    noweasels, bobinson, MartyM

    "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

    by eXtina on Wed Jul 06, 2011 at 10:00:07 PM PDT

  •  Red herring. I have not seen a single (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jayden, JanL

    comment here blaming the jury!

    And I've seen many to the contrary!

    Made-up outrage.

    Of course the jury was justified.

    It is a calling...to do things about injustice.... It helps to have a goal. I've always tried to have one.--Ted Kennedy, True Compass

    by Timaeus on Wed Jul 06, 2011 at 10:00:27 PM PDT

  •  Those comments are mild (24+ / 0-)

    compared to some on my Facebook.

    I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
    but I fear we will remain Democrats.

    by twigg on Wed Jul 06, 2011 at 10:00:33 PM PDT

  •  The burden is on the prosecution (61+ / 0-)

    I know very little about this case and only saw a few mentions on the news while the trial was in progress. I did not see, or read about, the evidence in the case. However, when a capital murder jury returns a not guilty verdict in two days, it is clear that the prosecution did not meet the burden of proof required to convince the jury.

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Wed Jul 06, 2011 at 10:01:29 PM PDT

  •  the mushroom cloud on the horizon (13+ / 0-)

    was Nancy Grace's head exploding since her employment history includes hijinks as a prosecutor.

    Streaming news is all over Kim Kardashian's tweets  over the case.  Why does this matter?  Her dad was OJ's original attorney so experience must be genetic though I seem to remember that he was demoted by the Dream Team for originally negotiating a plea offer of manslaughter and wanted OJ to take it.

  •  I didn't watch a second of the trial and (31+ / 0-)

    only knew about it peripherally because you'd sometimes see the story on the news.

    After Rachel (I think) played some reactions from TV commentators yesterday, including that despicable helmut-head Nancy Grace, I'm glad I missed the whole thing.  

    stay together / learn the flowers / go light - Gary Snyder

    by Mother Mags on Wed Jul 06, 2011 at 10:28:17 PM PDT

  •  The "Forensic Psychology professor" comment was (48+ / 0-)

    perversely amusing.  Mrs. Jack K and I both have college degrees and work in career fields where critical analysis is a vital skill.  We have a collective 1.000 batting average at being selected when juries are being formed (usually without actually having to actually answer a question during that "what do you think about this sort of crime" interview phase...

    The fact is that this was the Roman Coliseum reincarnated, courtesy of cable TV news, where anyone in the country could absorb just about every moment of the trial and listen to talking heads evaluate each movement - lacking only the Slo-Mo Clicker to make it all perfectly understandable to the average NFL viewer.   The Jury didn't see all this;  The Jury only saw the action in the court room.  The Jury decided that "beyond a reasonable doubt" wasn't met.  How the members got there is their business, but any attacks against the members of The Jury are an outrage against what's left of our system...

    It's kind of spooky to watch the commentary against 12 common folk who did what they were asked to do while five wingnut corporate shills in Black Robes slowly - day by day - rob all of us of our civil rights, our employment rights, our human rights, and our birthright with not a breath of outrage from the talking head commentators...

    "In a nation ruled by swine, all pigs are upward mobile..." - Dr. Hunter S. Thompson

    by Jack K on Wed Jul 06, 2011 at 10:35:36 PM PDT

  •  I served on a jury & it's not easy (52+ / 0-)

    It was a murder trial.  3 young men killed a security guard at a 7-11 store during a robbery.  We found the defendants guilty. Thankfully it was not a death penalty case.  No one knows how difficult it is to serve on a jury, and have all the jury agree whether the accused is innocent or guilty.  

    It is a terrible thing to see and have no vision. ~ Helen Keller

    by Pam from Calif on Wed Jul 06, 2011 at 10:46:23 PM PDT

    •  Thank you, Pam (20+ / 0-)

      for this comment and also for your jury service -- wow, a murder trial . . . that must have been so hard.

      PROUD to be a Democrat.

      by noweasels on Wed Jul 06, 2011 at 10:51:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks (21+ / 0-)

        I don't know what I would have done if it were a death penalty case; the judge made it clear during the jury interview process that it wasn't a death penalty trial.  These young men are probably in San Quentin Prison.   The jury was dismissed before the penalty phase; I didn't want to return for that phase.

        The DA did have tons of evidence; video, confessions, recants, witnesses and many "expert" witnesses.  Our jury was very diverse.  It was a very interesting and educational experience.  

        It is a terrible thing to see and have no vision. ~ Helen Keller

        by Pam from Calif on Wed Jul 06, 2011 at 11:02:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  why wasn't it a death penalty case? (3+ / 0-)

          since the young men killed the guard.
          Because robbery was the motive, not killing?
          Sorry for asking, but my legal knowledge is limited to Law & Order.

          GOP = Goodluck Old People

          by MartyM on Wed Jul 06, 2011 at 11:14:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  CA law is very specific (5+ / 0-)

            If a crime is committed; all involved are equally guilty. ie the get away driver, the lookout, the actual thief are all guilty of robbery and of murder;  if there a murder during the robbery.

            California Penal Code
            §212.5 FIRST DEGREE ROBBERY; SECOND DEGREE ROBBERY

            http://www.ucop.edu/...

            I'm not an attorney and not sure if I cited the correct law.  Perhaps a CA attorney can explain it better.

            During the trial it was determined that:

            One man struggled with the guard for the gun and the guard was killed.  Since this was done during a robbery all involved were equally guilty. The 3 men didn't intend to kill the guard; they had a history of robbing local 7-11 stores.

            We as the jury had to determine that a robbery took place 1st and then determine if the killing was deliberate or an accident.

            I don't know why the judge decided that this case wasn't going to be a death penalty case.

            It is a terrible thing to see and have no vision. ~ Helen Keller

            by Pam from Calif on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 01:11:28 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Felony murder rule (6+ / 0-)
              The rule of felony murder is a legal doctrine in some common law jurisdictions that broadens the crime of murder in two ways. First, when an offender kills accidentally or without specific intent to kill in the course of an applicable felony, what might have been manslaughter is escalated to murder.

              Second, it makes any participant in such a felony criminally liable for any deaths that occur during or in furtherance of that felony. While there is some debate about the original scope of the rule, modern interpretations typically require that the felony be an inherently dangerous one, or one committed in an obviously dangerous manner. For this reason, the felony murder rule is often justified by its supporters as a means of deterring dangerous felonies...

              http://en.wikipedia.org/...

              It is a terrible thing to see and have no vision. ~ Helen Keller

              by Pam from Calif on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 01:33:42 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  It could have been (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MartyM, Pam from Calif

            In California, if any one of a list of items is found true for first degree murder, then death can be sought.  One of these circumstances is that the murder was committed while committing a robbery. Likely, due to the circumstances of the case, the district attorney did not decide to seek the death penalty. Instead, the men probably are serving life without possibility of parole, since that is the alternative punishment to the death penalty in a special circumstance case.

    •  FWIW, I know someone who was the foreman (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      s l o w loris, Pam from Calif

      on a case that did involve the death penalty. . . . and ended up giving it.

      All I'll say about him is that I had a hard time picturing him voting for the DP, but I could understand his rationale for doing it, even if I would never have been able to do the same in his shoes.

      We don't want our country back, we want our country FORWARD. --Eclectablog

      by Samer on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 06:32:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Same here (6+ / 0-)

      See my comment above.  Mine was a sequestered jury too.

      Even though the state failed to prove the murder charges against our four defendants, they did prove multiple other charges against three of the four.  Going back into the courtroom to deliver the verdicts was tremendously emotional for all us on the jury.  Afterwards, we made a pact not to speak to the press.  Every member of our jury kept that pact too.

      More tax cuts would be gluttony in a time of starvation. That is not America. That is a nation about to be plundered, and a people laid to waste. - Charles Blow

      by gulfgal98 on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 06:42:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  My father served on a jury in a murder (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pam from Calif

      case, too.  In this case, a young woman with a newborn baby linked up with a new boyfriend.   When the boyfriend told her he was moving to Florida she said she wanted to go, too, but he told her, no, he didn't want to have a baby tagging along with him.  This woman shot her baby twice through the head and threw his body in the trash.  (BF didn't know about this.)  IIRC, the state (TN) had the death penalty on the books but execution was never an issue.  Instead she was sentenced to twenty years.

      Later, I assume because of his jury experience, my father served as foreman in an armed robbery case.  He told me the first thing he did in deliberation was go over every bit of evidence, line by line, then ask if anyone had any questions or comments.  They then took a vote and unanimously found him guilty.  When they read the verdict, this armed robber stood up and shouted that he was going kill the judge, the prosecutor and every member of the jury.  I know this probably happens all the time except a couple years later this guy escaped from Brushy Mountain Penitentiary and spent three weeks on the lam with James Earl Ray.  Oy.

      Never meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer.--Bruce Graham

      by Ice Blue on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 12:03:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  i agree: they did the right thing (17+ / 0-)

    as did the OJ jury.

    a verdict says nothing about what a jury "thinks"... it usually reflects the real deliberations of a group of people and their efforts to comply with the law.

    real people on juries do their best and take their service seriously.

    glad to see this on the rec list.

    i've served on a few juries, including a grand jury (at the county level).

  •  Five things I believe: (1) We will probably (21+ / 0-)

    never know exactly what happened to Caylee Anthony.

    (2) The defense's "explanation" of what happened is not a coherent, logical explanation. Even if we accept that Caylee drowned when the defense said she did, it's hard to reconcile that with what happened.

    (3) That family has serious, serious problems that I would never wish on anyone.

    (4) If the law does not even allow for the possibility of punishing (either civil or criminal) a lawyer for accusing someone of felonies and not providing evidence, it probably should. [Regardless of what might have happened in this case, how would you feel if you were accused of such a thing on national television?]

    (5) If we never hear about the Anthony family in the media after tomorrow, I would be more than grateful.

    We don't want our country back, we want our country FORWARD. --Eclectablog

    by Samer on Wed Jul 06, 2011 at 11:06:25 PM PDT

    •  Comments! (15+ / 0-)

      thank you for this, dear Samer . . . may I respond??

      The defense's "explanation" of what happened is not a coherent, logical explanation. Even if we accept that Caylee drowned when the defense said she did, it's hard to reconcile that with what happened.
      '

      The defense has no requirement to prove anything.

      That family has serious, serious problems that I would never wish on anyone.

      No argument here.

      If the law does not even allow for the possibility of punishing (either civil or criminal) a lawyer for accusing someone of felonies and not providing evidence, it probably should. [Regardless of what might have happened in this case, how would you feel if you were accused of such a thing on national television?]

      Everything said during a trial is "priviliged."  You cannot bring a libel lawsuit against what someone said in court.  The reason for this is that we want people to state truth in court and they could be persuaded to say something else without the privilege.

      PROUD to be a Democrat.

      by noweasels on Wed Jul 06, 2011 at 11:17:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  As far as the defense goes (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CanyonWren, wvmom

        I never said they had to prove a specific case for how things happened; they merely had to do enough to plant reasonable doubt in the jurors' minds.

        That said, they did claim something approximating an affirmative defense (that it was an accident, and that Casey's behavior was the result of sexual molestation). [I still come back to the question that a lot of people have raised: if this really was an accident, why make it look like murder one?]

        As for the opening argument: I can see why it is privileged, but I still find it highly sleazy.

        We don't want our country back, we want our country FORWARD. --Eclectablog

        by Samer on Wed Jul 06, 2011 at 11:51:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  My thoughts, too. (0+ / 0-)

          The affirmative defense doesn't wash, imho.  Where do we draw the line?  Can the defense lie with impunity (it seems) in order to elicit an emotional reaction from the jury and cast a reasonable doubt on the crime?  I'd say this defense team did exactly that, but we'll never know for sure.

          Sarah Palin: All pistol and no squint.

          by CanyonWren on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 08:06:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Well, it's sleazy if it's untrue. But given that (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Samer

          the father wasn't on trial here, there's a limit to how much you can evaluate that. I don't know how you can evaluate the "sleazy(-ness)" of the argument without knowing something about the veracity of it.

          •  "Without knowing" is sort of the point (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Pozzo

            They've just tarred him with this accusation, and presented no evidence to back it up.

            Maybe that's what Casey Anthony would have testified to, but I would think that the opening arguments should not be allowed to make claims that can only be backed up by the defendant's testimony unless that defendant is committed to testifying.

            We don't want our country back, we want our country FORWARD. --Eclectablog

            by Samer on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 09:11:26 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Privilege in that sense (0+ / 0-)

        Only refers to liable/slander defenses. It does not shield everything a lawyer says in court for all purposes. A lawyer can indeed be disciplined by the bar for making intentionally false or even misleading statements to the court.

    •  yes, a very dysfunctional family (4+ / 0-)

      And the symbiotic relationship between mother and daughter - ugh.
      And the son's treatment, if true - ugh.
      Very sad.

      GOP = Goodluck Old People

      by MartyM on Wed Jul 06, 2011 at 11:18:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  All this discussion is amazing... (6+ / 0-)

    this case is almost identical to the Scott Peterson case.  Here are the facts and they are undisputed:

    Fact:  Casey Anthony was the last person so see her daughter alive.

    Fact:  She did not report her missing for 31 days

    Fact: She lied repeatedly when asked what happened to her daughter(consciousness of guilt).

    Fact:  Her daughter was found a quarter of a mile from her house in a swamp with duct tape across her face.

    Fact:  She abandoned her car for no apparent reason and when her parents went to retrieve it, they reported that it smelled of some sort of decay.

    Fact: The child was murdered by suffocation(the drowning story is bs, otherwise why use duct tape across her face).  

    There is more than enough evidence in those statements alone to convict her of manslaughter and child abuse.

    Usually a prosecutor only has to provide the means and opportunity(she had both and she was the only person that had both)  to provide enough circumstantial evidence to convict.  Motive is often optional but in this case she had the most compelling motive of all, she was a young mother who just lost control.  

    •  Disagree (16+ / 0-)

      with regard to Scott Peterson . . . there was forensic evidence there and none in this case.

      Also: There was no evidence presented about the cause of Caylee's death.  There is no evidence that she died by suffocation . . .

      PROUD to be a Democrat.

      by noweasels on Wed Jul 06, 2011 at 11:27:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  She had duct tape across her nose and (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        GlowNZ, AmenRa, Anak, milton333

        her mouth....what part of that does not compute.  What forensic evidence...they had the same kind of evidence that this case had, perhaps presented differently, but there was no direct evidence that Peterson murdered his wife, just means, motive and opportunity.   He had a boat, there was some evidence that at some time, his wife had been in the boat, she was found in the bay, that was pretty much the evidence.  

      •  was there even proof Casey was the last person (7+ / 0-)

        to see her daughter alive?

        •  If the defense had a credible alternative (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LaurenMonica, milton333

          (the fictitious nanny) don't  you think they would have put them on the witness stand.  As it was, she tried to blame her family.  

          •  The defense doesn't have to prove a credible (10+ / 0-)

            alternative. The burden is on the prosecution to prove that Casey did it.

            I, for one, have deep suspicions about Casey's father.

            •  Innocent people don't usually hide (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LaurenMonica, milton333

              behind this canard, they produce all possible evidence to prove the prosecution incorrect.  In this case, the defense made up unprovable lies and presented them, her dad molested her, her Dad did it, her Dad helped her cover it up, her mother was on her computer when she couldn't have been.  I guess if she had had a dog, the dog would have done it.

              •  look, something is fishy in Denmark. and that (15+ / 0-)

                family is a horrible, horrible mess.

                (Frankly, if Casey had a history of sexual abuse by the father and he is still in her life, it's entirely possible that he's responsible for all of this and Casey is a PTSD/enabler.)

                Still, the prosecution must prove with evidence, not presumptions. They can't just say what they think happened. They have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. That is, if there are any holes in their version of what happened which leave openings that the story could possibly be different than what they are presenting, the jury must acquit.

                You have strong feelings about what you think you know. But you don't really know. You weren't there. That you don't have ideas about how it could be different than what you think, still doesn't make your version proven.

                •  I presented the facts below, the problem (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  milton333

                  is that everyone expects that their will always be indisputable forensic evidence(CSI syndrome) and that rarely happens.  As far as Casey being molested, they presented no evidence of that, they simply made an unsubstantiated accusation, an excuse for Casey's incredibly dysfunctional behavior.  

                  •  why is Casey so dysfunctional? It's not an (7+ / 0-)

                    irrelevant question.

                    If she has suffered a life of abuse, her behaviors could be easily explained. And a world of possibilities about how she might not have killed Caylee present themselves.

                    People aren't just born with the level of dysfunction Casey exhibits.

                    Why are we so willing to dismiss that?

                    If she was sexually abused, her mother is never going to corroborate that. That's standard in these dysfunctional families. And it may explain why the mother made the bogus claim about being on the computer. (She may feel deep guilt, along with a suspicion about Casey's dad. But she can't speak out against the dad and so she made a desperate, but lame, attempt to help Casey.)

                    I just don't see how it's so difficult to imagine that there are scenarios which could mean that Casey is not guilty of what we think. We weren't there and we don't fully understand the family dynamics. What level of PTSD is Casey living with? Could it have been compounded by either an accidental death of her child? Or knowing that someone murdered her child? Could she have been forced to participate in the death or aftermath? What if Casey's dad is also Caylee's dad?

                    Why the willingness to simply see this woman as purely evil and not even consider that something more complex is going on? It says a lot more about you, than it does about our justice system that you're so stuck in your perspective. You think you know what happened but you can't know. You simply can't know. Unless you were there. No one has been able to provide enough evidence to know. It's all presumption.

                    •  You guys are all about evidence.... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      milton333

                      there is no evidence of it not even circumstantial evidence.  Just because you are a congenital liar does not mean you were abused, it could mean that you learned to lie early and became extremely good at it.  It could mean that you observed the adults in your life lie and learned from observing them.  The defense presented no evidence physical or otherwise of this abuse.  They presented the defense of she didn't do it but if I did, it's everyone's fault but mine, the defense of a narcissist.  

                    •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Pozzo
                      People aren't just born with the level of dysfunction Casey exhibits.

                      Sometimes they are.

                      I'm not saying that because Anthony is a miserable specimen of humanity she should have been found guilty but you can't hold her parents responsible for her actions.

                      Never meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer.--Bruce Graham

                      by Ice Blue on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 12:21:51 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Like her Dad would admit to it, PULEEZE (0+ / 0-)
                •  Personally, I think Casey Anthony is a textbook (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Pozzo, lakehillsliberal

                  sociopath.  The vast majority of sociopaths never commit murder, but they still lie through their teeth and hurt everyone who tries to help them.

                  Never meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer.--Bruce Graham

                  by Ice Blue on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 12:18:03 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  asdf (11+ / 0-)
                Innocent people don't usually hide behind this canard

                If they have a good lawyer they do.

              •  The son of a good friend of mine spent 7 years (6+ / 0-)

                on death row for a double murder he didn't commit. A largely circumstantial case. It wasn't until someone was caught with a ring belonging to one of the victims that he was set free. He had nothing to hide and yet because there was about 20 minutes he couldn't account for he was convicted.

                •  I have a casual friend doing 65 years for a murder (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  snackdoodle, TimmyB, cpresley, Ice Blue

                  he didn't commit, on a purely circumstantial case. The victim was his brother in law, a small time drug deal connected to the Mexican mafia known in lowlife circles for not paying his bills. The victim was stabbed multiple times and set on fire, and uttered "they came to get me" in the ambulance before expiring.

                  Nonetheless, the prosecution spun a purely circumstantial case that my friend killed his BIL because the victim had recently raped his wife, the accused's sister. And the jury believed it.

                  I'd rather a jury reject a circumstantial case that smells like a whole wharf of rotten fish than put one single more innocent person behind bars. So kudos to the Anthony jury, and a hearty fuck you to that empaneled to try my friend.

                  Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

                  by Robobagpiper on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 09:04:16 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  My friend's son had about 20-30 minutes while (5+ / 0-)

                    he was on his way home he couldn't account for and the fact no one saw exactly when he left work. That couple with the fact he was found with his fiance's blood all over him. Contact blood, he got home found her raped with her throat cut called 911, incoherently. Their 2 year old little boy had been smothered in his crib. Her special engagement ring was missing and no one could explain that. How could even 30 minutes be enough to drive 18 miles and have time to commit the crime. The police decided he was guilty and made sure it turned out that way. They did a rape kit on her and conveniently lost it. He had a PA that didn't do a very good job. In the end, it was the engagement ring he had made for her that cleared his name, the missing ring no one cared about finding. A news Paper reporter decided to do a story on the murder because his family and HER family still insisted he was innocent. The story ran a picture of the engagement ring and someone saw it and remembered. Not long after a man came into a tavern and the bar tender saw the ring. He called the cops and fortunately they picked the man up. What actually happened was my friends son had sold a truck a few days before, the truck was seen that night in the drive way but no one thought about it. The man who bought the truck like the looks of the lady of the house and came back to rape and murder her. He took her ring to wear on his pinkie finger.

            •  Based upon what? (0+ / 0-)

              ???

      •  thats not true (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pozzo, LaurenMonica

        she had duct tape across her nose and mouth.  explain how that doesn't cause suffocation?

        May the road rise up to meet you. May the wind be always at your back.

        by GlowNZ on Wed Jul 06, 2011 at 11:37:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  was it proved to be on before death? -nt (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          psychodrew
          •  uh (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Pozzo, LaurenMonica, milton333

            why would there be any need to place duct tape on a DEAD child?

            May the road rise up to meet you. May the wind be always at your back.

            by GlowNZ on Wed Jul 06, 2011 at 11:42:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  just because we don't know doesn't mean it (12+ / 0-)

              wasn't possible.

              You can't just make assumptions. There has to be proof.

            •  Her face didn't exist, it was skeletal remains (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FarWestGirl

              do you really think duct tape would still be neatly in place after 6 months of decomposition in the elements and animals dragging those remains around? Some of it was found with her hair, which still doesn't mean it was on her face.

              •  You obviously missed the forensic testimony, (0+ / 0-)

                they testified very precisely that three pieces of tape were found across her nose and mouth.  

                •  Link it I read it was attached to her hair (0+ / 0-)

                  Her skull was moved around, by animals and perhaps by the person who found her remains. I repeat if the duct tape had been attached to her nose and mouth after 6 mons of decomp it wouldn't have been attached to anything.

                  •  I will help you with this (6+ / 0-)

                    http://www.csmonitor.com/...

                    A forensic anthropologist testified in an Orlando, Fla., murder trial on Friday that a piece of duct tape found near a toddler’s skull was large enough to simultaneously cover the girl’s mouth and nose, bolstering a prosecution theory that duct tape was the murder weapon used by Casey Anthony to kill her 2-year-old daughter.

                    On cross examination, however, the same expert, Michael Warren of the University of Florida, said he did not know whether the duct tape actually caused the toddler’s death.

                    “You don’t know if that duct tape had anything to do with the disposal [of the body] or the death,” defense attorney Jose Baez asked.

                    A forensic anthropologist testified in an Orlando, Fla., murder trial on Friday that a piece of duct tape found near a toddler’s skull was large enough to simultaneously cover the girl’s mouth and nose, bolstering a prosecution theory that duct tape was the murder weapon used by Casey Anthony to kill her 2-year-old daughter

                    Duct tape over the nose and mouth was put forth by the prosecutor, NOT found on her face, it was a THEORY, not a fact, hooha not evidence. It could not be proven, shown or otherwise become more than a theory.

            •  what happened (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              esquimaux

              to "reality-based"?

              How do you know WHERE that tape was? You don't.  That was a big deal to the jury, if I heard one of the alternates interviewed correctly. There were a lot of questions about how this so-called "evidence" was handled.

              They also had a LOT of questions about the father, too--which is, again, seriously-justified reasonable doubt.

              REPEAL the Telecomm Act & REVIEW this decision. NO journalist should be fired because their boss can't have the truth told.

              by lunachickie on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 07:06:04 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Questions about the father (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                moira977, milton333, cryonaut, Ice Blue

                based upon zero evidence. The defense threw out B.S. allegations, hoping it would stick. It appears that some of it did.

                •  as much evidence as they (7+ / 0-)

                  had on Casey.

                  You obviously never had to step back out of your comfort zone long enough to realize the kind of shit that goes on in other dysfunctional families.

                  Honey, my father put the fun in dysfunctional, but he was a mean motherfucker when he was drunk. And nobody, but NOBODY outside our family knew that--they thought he was the greatest guy on the planet. But we knew better because we lived with him.

                  In short, you don't have any factual basis whatsoever to determine whether the allegations put out about George Anthony were BS or not because you  didn't live with that family.

                  REPEAL the Telecomm Act & REVIEW this decision. NO journalist should be fired because their boss can't have the truth told.

                  by lunachickie on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 07:30:30 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  It's not that I know (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    milton333

                    It's not that I   was there and know that these allegations are false. I don't know. Maybe they are true. But there's ZERO evidence of this.  I find it odd that the people wanting to fit these jurors with halos for acquitting Casey want to charge her father with things like rape and child abuse when there's no evidence of this whatsoever.

                    •  yet you want (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      esquimaux, snackdoodle

                      to convict this woman when there was NO EVIDENCE that she killed her baby, except the prosecution's contention that she was a slut.

                      I find that really odd.  Perhaps you just can't separate tv commentary from actual reality? After all, as you correctly note, you weren't there...

                      REPEAL the Telecomm Act & REVIEW this decision. NO journalist should be fired because their boss can't have the truth told.

                      by lunachickie on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 07:41:56 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  except there is evidence (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        milton333, Darmok

                        It's circumtantial, but it's there.

                        Perhaps you just can't separate tv commentary from actual reality? After all, as you correctly note, you weren't there...

                        I am pretty good at this actually. Also a trained lawyer and NOT from a disfunctional family. Try again.

                        •  and that's not enough! (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          antimony, snackdoodle

                          what the fuck part of Circumstantial Evidence IS NOT PROOF do you not yet get?

                           

                          REPEAL the Telecomm Act & REVIEW this decision. NO journalist should be fired because their boss can't have the truth told.

                          by lunachickie on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 07:48:01 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes it is!!! (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            milton333, Darmok

                            You can get the death penalty based upon circumstantial evidence. Circumatial evidence is, after all, evidence. And it's admissible in court assuming proper  foundations are laid etc. Circumtantial evidence can most assuredly be proof of a crime.

                          •  Yeah, when there's OTHER COMPELLING EVIDENCE (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            snackdoodle

                            Jesus H Christ on a stick....there was NONE here.

                            But, hey, you win. You're right, because YOU KNOW. What the fuck ever...

                            REPEAL the Telecomm Act & REVIEW this decision. NO journalist should be fired because their boss can't have the truth told.

                            by lunachickie on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 07:52:29 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  circumstantial evidence (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Pozzo, Darmok

                            This is not correct. According to the low, a guilty verdict  can be obtained entirely on circumstantial evidence. You can yell and curse and carry on, but you don't seem to understand the law.

                          •  I understand it perfectly here (0+ / 0-)

                            you just don't like someone postulating the notion that you might not be very open-minded in general, let alone about "The Law".

                            Otherwise, there would have been no need to drop a veiled insult.

                            REPEAL the Telecomm Act & REVIEW this decision. NO journalist should be fired because their boss can't have the truth told.

                            by lunachickie on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 09:04:03 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  why are you so vociferous inn (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Pozzo

                            defending an asshole who partied it up as her daughter was dead, rotting in the woods? She is free, she doesn't need to be painted in a good light because she is 100% a piece of shit.

                        •  and btw (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          snackdoodle

                          there's heresay evidence that George Anthony molested his children and grandchildren.

                          That's about as useful as "circumstantial" evidence.  

                          REPEAL the Telecomm Act & REVIEW this decision. NO journalist should be fired because their boss can't have the truth told.

                          by lunachickie on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 07:51:04 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  ah, no (6+ / 0-)

                            Heresay "Evidence" is generally not admissable at all, subject to certain exceptions. Circumstantial evidence is generally admissible and sufficient to sustain a conviction. More importantly, if the jury didn't hear this heresay, it wasn't part of the case and they couldn't have relied upon it. The circumstantial evidence against Casey became actually evidence in the case and if the jury did convict here, would have been a legitimate basis for doing so. There's nothing inherently wrong with using circumstantial evidence. Scott peterson, for example, is on death row on an almost entirely circumstantial case.

                          •  the key word is "almost" (0+ / 0-)
                            Scott peterson, for example, is on death row on an almost entirely circumstantial case.

                            What part of the evidence there was NOT circumstantial?

                            REPEAL the Telecomm Act & REVIEW this decision. NO journalist should be fired because their boss can't have the truth told.

                            by lunachickie on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 08:29:05 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  There was some (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Darmok

                            There was a strand of hair and a  wrench. Almost all of it was circumstantial, however. And he's probably going to die for it. With good reason.

                          •  Shocking (0+ / 0-)

                            no response....

                            REPEAL the Telecomm Act & REVIEW this decision. NO journalist should be fired because their boss can't have the truth told.

                            by lunachickie on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 09:04:25 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  My apologies (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Darmok

                            Apparently I owe  you a response in some specified amount of time.

                          •  hearsay from a pathological liar (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Pozzo, cryonaut
                          •  yes, we know (0+ / 0-)

                            you know all about it--you were there, you know the accused personally, and you know she was lying.  

                            You know, it's really hard to take a comment seriously when it obviously relies on what the tv commentators said.

                            REPEAL the Telecomm Act & REVIEW this decision. NO journalist should be fired because their boss can't have the truth told.

                            by lunachickie on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 08:31:21 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Again (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            moira977, cryonaut, Darmok

                            It's not that any of us where there. But 4 convictions of lying to the police plus a myriad of other tall tales are enormous body blows to the credibility of anyone. is it possible it happened? Yes. But there's no evidence of this. Remember, Casey didn't testify to it and George denied it. What "evidence" was there for a jury to believe that this happened?

                          •  The same evidence (0+ / 0-)

                            you're using to convict her.

                            You're giving this guy a free pass, just because he denied something. The jury, obviously, didn't find him as credible as you do.

                            REPEAL the Telecomm Act & REVIEW this decision. NO journalist should be fired because their boss can't have the truth told.

                            by lunachickie on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 08:49:34 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No way to tell (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Darmok
                            The jury, obviously, didn't find him as credible as you do.

                            They haven't said, to my knowledge that the reason they acquitted is because they think Gramps was a child molester. It's even possible to believe that George did in fact molest Casey AND for her to be guilty of murder of Cayle. This isn't binary.

                          •  If you actually lived here (0+ / 0-)

                            you would have heard one of the alternate jurors say, in a phone interview broadcast locally (later in the day) that they had a LOT of questions about George Anthony and that was a big part of their reasonable doubt.
                             

                            REPEAL the Telecomm Act & REVIEW this decision. NO journalist should be fired because their boss can't have the truth told.

                            by lunachickie on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 08:57:16 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That's fine (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Darmok

                            But alternate jurors aren't the ones tasked with making the actual decision.  And again, it's also possible for the allegations against George to be true re: incest/molestation AND for Casey to be guilty of murder.  If what the alternate says is true (and we don't know that it is), it looks like they may well have gotten this one wrong.

                          •  Do you understand now? (0+ / 0-)

                            And the alternate wasn't reporting her own verdict, she was reporting what she heard the actual jurors discussing.

                            Once this ex-cop told his side, the State decided they were dealing with a stupid bimbo slut who killed her baby.  Because there just couldn't POSSIBLY be any other explanation.

                            You're damn right they may have gotten this wrong.

                            REPEAL the Telecomm Act & REVIEW this decision. NO journalist should be fired because their boss can't have the truth told.

                            by lunachickie on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 09:26:23 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yeah I get it (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Darmok

                            The mere fact someone says something doens't mean it's true. And jurors can discuss lots of things and then move on from them. It's quite common for example, for a jury to request to hear a certain line of testimony replayed, and then simply move on.

                          •  Good (0+ / 0-)

                            You'll want to stop reaching so high, then. Because we're not talking about what can happen with a "hypothetical jury" where "jurors can discuss lots of things and then move on".

                            We're talking about a specific instance where a specific witness to specific deliberations made note of a specific item that she observed. This was a specific interview after a specific verdict that made note of the same thing a lot of observers noted--they didn't find George Anthony credible.

                            Hence, the reasonable doubt. There's no argument for "the jury screwed up". None.

                            REPEAL the Telecomm Act & REVIEW this decision. NO journalist should be fired because their boss can't have the truth told.

                            by lunachickie on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 10:30:12 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I am not giving anyone a "free pass" (0+ / 0-)

                            George Anthony was not on trial. Casey was. I don't know if he's credible or not. Doesn't reallly matter. His testimony has little to do why I think Casey killed her daugther. If George Anthony did molest Casey or Cayle or anyone else and the statute of limitations has not run, bring the case if you've got the evidence. I am willing to accept evidence that is credible. Nobody's provided any, credible or otherwise.

                  •  So because you father was a mean MF (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Pozzo, milton333

                    are you telling us you have murdered and buried several of your offspring and when we find them, we should write it off to your abuse?  Just asking...

                •  Your defense of the father is also based on zero (0+ / 0-)

                  evidence. You have no information whatsoever that would lead you to know whether the allegations were b.s. or not.

                  •  obviously the interview of the alternate juror (0+ / 0-)

                    shown on (I think) local news 9 isn't getting a lot of play. I heard it as it happened.

                    So yeah, it's based on more than zero evidence. The woman was plain as day--the jury had a lot of questions about George Anthony's involvement, and the jury didn't find him terribly credible.

                    REPEAL the Telecomm Act & REVIEW this decision. NO journalist should be fired because their boss can't have the truth told.

                    by lunachickie on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 09:07:22 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  I know that (0+ / 0-)

                    There was ZERO evidence of these allegations admitted into evidence. I know that George denied it under oath and that nothing was producted that contradicted his denial. I know that the defense mentioned it in the opening and was barred from mentioning it in closing, due to the lack of evidence to support it. It may be true, but there's no a scintilla of evidence to back it up. More importantly, there wasn't a scintilla of evidence before the jury regarding this issue.

                    •  the jury had his testimony (0+ / 0-)

                      and it was admissible. And again, apparently the jury didn't find that testimony--or George Anthony--terribly credible.

                      I don't know what part of that is so difficult to comprehend.

                      REPEAL the Telecomm Act & REVIEW this decision. NO journalist should be fired because their boss can't have the truth told.

                      by lunachickie on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 10:58:18 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Do you even know what evidence is? (0+ / 0-)
                        and it was admissible. And again, apparently the jury didn't find that testimony--or George Anthony--terribly credible.

                        Anthony's testimony, the only testimony we have,  is that he didn't molest her. There was no testimony to the contrary. There was no physical evidence to the contract. No medical records, no expert testimony. Nada. the jury may not have believed his denial, but that doesn' t mean  his testimony is evidence of molestation.  And again, even if he did molest her, it doesn't mean that Casey didnt' kill her daugther. Both things can simultaneously be true.

            •  Psychological gesture. n/t (0+ / 0-)

              Information is abundant, wisdom is scarce. The Druid

              by FarWestGirl on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 10:19:19 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  The juror said that they couldn't convicted Casey (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        snackdoodle, Pozzo

        because there was no cause of death, same goes with Scott Peterson.  Did we even find the body of his wife? Yet his behavior (just like Casey) and the actions he took were enough

        Republicans secret dream = the impeachment of Bo the Dog LOL

        by LaurenMonica on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 07:49:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  What proof? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LordMike, lunachickie, esquimaux

      What proof is there that someone else didn't do it at Casey Anthony's behest?

      Can they PROVE that someone else didn't actually do it?

      No?

      Then they can't PROVE Casey Anthony did it herself, now can they.

      Yeah, imagine a skinny, beaky kid with an unfortunate last name, still trying to get approval and feel attractive and liked to cancel out all those other years growing up. - FarWestGirl

      by Rick Aucoin on Wed Jul 06, 2011 at 11:34:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If someone did it at Casey's behest then (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        GlowNZ, husl piper 11, Pozzo, milton333

        according to the law Casey did it, the law does not differentiate especially when it comes to murder, in fact, that would be first degree and not manslaughter.

        •  True. (11+ / 0-)

          So, could they prove that someone else did it?  Or that Casey did it?

          No, they could not.

          If you cannot prove that someone, themselves, with their own hands, committed murder then you have failed to reach the standard of proof in our legal system.

          Thank god for that.

          I think she did it.  For the record.  And I thank every god that might exist that she was acquitted.  Because I would rather 100 guilty people walk than ONE innocent be convicted of murder and sent to life in our FUCKING PRISON system or put to death by the state.

          But, you know, maybe that's just me.

          Yeah, imagine a skinny, beaky kid with an unfortunate last name, still trying to get approval and feel attractive and liked to cancel out all those other years growing up. - FarWestGirl

          by Rick Aucoin on Wed Jul 06, 2011 at 11:51:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That is nice but as someone that (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            milton333

            has sat in a courtroom and watched the anguish of a family that has had a child murdered and received no justice,  what would you say to them?  That their child is the sacrifice that our system demands because we cannot produce truth or justice in our courtrooms.  

            •  either you believe in the system, seeing justice (19+ / 0-)

              as a matter of balance for all society, or you don't.

              I agree with Rick, I prefer that the burden of proof is on the prosecution and that if there is any reasonable way to consider doubt, then a person needs to be set free, because it is better justice for all in the long run when we make it harder for innocent people to be convicted.

              Justice for society is not always equal to justice in every individual case.

              The family has a profound tragedy to heal from regardless of whether a perpetrator goes to prison or is executed. Focusing the energy on that needing to happen so that they can grieve and process and find their way forward is a red herring. We have a cultural norm of giving the power of our healing over to "justice". It's like we refuse to consider that we could do it without that. That creates a mob mentality where "someone has to pay!".

              I understand that life would feel better if perpetrators always paid. But not if that's at the expense of innocent people having their lives destroyed because we've lowered the bar for conviction.

              •  I believe in truth and in justice, I do not (0+ / 0-)

                believe in a system that seeks neither.  I do not believe that if you have the most money you win.  Our system obsures guilt and makes innocence difficult to prove.  As Alan Dershowitz said, our system is not about truth or justice, it is about who has the most resources and the best representation, that only works for the guilty.

                •  so this isn't about Casey Anthony for you. This (13+ / 0-)

                  is just another example of a system that should be scrapped.

                  I think it's fascinating that you weren't there when Caylee died and yet you think you know the truth better than that jury. You're judge and jury all on your own. Who needs a crappy justice system?! lakehillsliberal will tell you what the truth is and what justice should be done!

                  Was the Casey Anthony case about money? Did she have the resources to manipulate the system? I don't think so. Did the prosecution rush a case without sufficient evidence? Why, yes.

                  You're so caught up in your anger about a different kind of injustice that we're living with - and I get it. I do. - that you're willing to sacrifice this woman's life without proof. That's devastatingly sad. Fight the monied interests. Fight to stop corporate control over our planet. Fight to end wars. But, really, we're going to give up on having to proof beyond a doubt that someone should be sentenced to death?

                  I believe fully in the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof. It scares me that you don't. Even with this burden so many innocent people go to jail.

                  How do you suggest that a system work? What's the standard for proof of guilt? The court of public opinion? Or do we appoint someone like you who is the be all and end all of what is the truth? We could be like Bahrain, rigging up false charges and putting people in prison because the King is the only one who gets to say what the truth is.

                  I wouldn't want you or all the mob screaming about this jury to be in charge of any place I lived. It would be a place steeped in fear and anxiety.

                  •  I think what lakehills means (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Pozzo, milton333

                    is that our judicial system could be oriented to actually finding out what happened, instead of relying on the conflicting accounts of police/prosecutors and defense attorneys.  

                    Systems like that do exist (they're called 'inquisitorial'), where an investigative judge will fact-find first, and then the case is sent before a jury.

                    Pas de bras, pas de chocolat!

                    by nominalize on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 06:22:23 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  ??? (0+ / 0-)
                      actually finding out what happened

                      And the results here, in this case, with this dysfunctional family, would have been the same.

                      REPEAL the Telecomm Act & REVIEW this decision. NO journalist should be fired because their boss can't have the truth told.

                      by lunachickie on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 07:09:06 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  not necessarily (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        lunachickie

                        An investigative judge would have at least looked into the defense's claims of abuse.  At that stage of the process, cases sometimes explode to cover a wide variety of things.  

                        Consequently, it's harder for a defense to just throw any old idea out there and hope that it sticks--- the judge will check it out if it's relevant.  

                        Pas de bras, pas de chocolat!

                        by nominalize on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 08:45:17 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Apparently (0+ / 0-)

                          here, that's the prosecution's job. And they stopped looking once George Anthony, ex-cop, told them whatever he told them. Because surely he's more credible than his slut of a daughter.

                          Err, sorry, I don't think I read you correctly earlier--although in this particular case, I don't think I would have trusted the judge with that kind of discretion :)

                          REPEAL the Telecomm Act & REVIEW this decision. NO journalist should be fired because their boss can't have the truth told.

                          by lunachickie on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 09:20:41 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  technically, here, it's the jury's job (0+ / 0-)

                            The jury is the sole determiner of fact in a criminal trial.  The prosecution and defense give their versions, the judge makes sure they play by the rules, but it's the jury's job to determine if the prosecution's claims are true beyond a reasonable doubt.

                            Pas de bras, pas de chocolat!

                            by nominalize on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 07:12:56 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And here is where our system fails over and (0+ / 0-)

                            over again, most jurors are just not qualified to do this anymore, maybe they never were.  The CSI effect, professional criminals who are professional liars, the relevant information that is not admissible, it makes it a very difficult if not impossible job.

                          •  ask any lawyer (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Pozzo, lakehillsliberal

                            and they'll tell you, the LAST thing they want is to go before a jury, because you are never sure what verdict they'll come up with.  

                            Not that juries have a lot to go with: For most of our legal history, the best evidence has been sworn eyewitness testimony.  Studies show that this is actually the least reliable, because of how human psychology and physiology disrupt our memories' accuracy.  

                            I can only imagine how many innocent people have been convicted, and how many guilty people have gone free.  But that's the point of the inquisitorial system--- at least there is an impartial arbiter of the facts of the matter BEFORE any determination of guilt.  

                            There are problems, of course, with inquisitorial judges, most notoriously when they investigate too zealously.  But they do avoid the problems of truthiness that plague our courts.

                            Pas de bras, pas de chocolat!

                            by nominalize on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 09:38:01 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Having been an eye witness to a (0+ / 0-)

                            crime, I can validate what you say, especially if it is a cross racial identification.  I stared at someone for 15 minutes and he ended up being a purse snatcher(not mine, someone else's) and I could not with any confidence identify him later.

                •  What would you change, then? (5+ / 0-)

                  I've seen a lot of grousing about our criminal justice system since this verdict.  But precious few recommendations on what to change about it to make it work "better".

                  So, please, what would YOU change to make it better, in your eyes?

                  Yeah, imagine a skinny, beaky kid with an unfortunate last name, still trying to get approval and feel attractive and liked to cancel out all those other years growing up. - FarWestGirl

                  by Rick Aucoin on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 01:18:17 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Perhaps an inquistorial system is up your alley (3+ / 0-)

                  I wonder how much our adversarial system influences our media's notion that there is no objective truth, only two competing versions of it.

                  Pas de bras, pas de chocolat!

                  by nominalize on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 06:20:32 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Apparently there are systems all over the (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    milton333

                    world that do exactly that, the French system focuses on finding truth, objective truth.  I think our system has become requires more resources than the average defendant can muster and having served on two juries, I can tell you for a fact that Casey Anthony had excellent resources.  The average defendant gets none of these.  They don't have a team representing them, they are lucky if they counsel is coherent.   As for being judge and jury, that is what our system provides all of us, they allow camera's and visitors into the courtroom for a reason, to allow us to witness and judge our judicial system.  We have 2 and 1/2 million prisioners in this country and many of them are probably innocent but our system does not work, it did not work for them and it did not work for Caylee.  Why you are defending it, is beyond comprehension but it did work for Casey, someone who murdered her daughter and had the a team of skilled lawyers to help her cover it up.

                  •  What? Inquisitorial judges are generally used (0+ / 0-)

                    early on in criminal cases that fall within their purview; the case is then handed over for a trial based on adversarial procedure.

                    The possibility for a civil trial is still open to the Anthony family. We don't need to eliminate the possibility of a trial based criminal procedure.

                    What you're describing is fundamentally anti-democratic.

                    •  Is this meant to reply to my comment? (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      lakehillsliberal
                      What you're describing is fundamentally anti-democratic.

                      What is fundamentally anti-democratic about a judicial system that seeks to find truth on its own, instead of relying on the competing parties to offer their own truths?  

                      Or do you mean the right to trial by jury?  (Which is itself not inherently tied to democracy, btw)  Nothing about inquisitorial systems eliminates juries from judging guilt or innocence.  They involve fact-finding judges that help establish what can be known about the case.  After that, these facts are sent to a jury who will judge based on these facts, instead of juggling two competing sets of 'truths' as if they were of equal value.  

                         

                      Pas de bras, pas de chocolat!

                      by nominalize on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 08:50:15 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  Hello? What would you change then? (0+ / 0-)

                  Maybe you didn't see the question so I'll repost it.  

                  You have a problem with the way our courts are run.  Okay, I get that.

                  What, specifically, would you change, then, to make the court system work better by your view?

                  Yeah, imagine a skinny, beaky kid with an unfortunate last name, still trying to get approval and feel attractive and liked to cancel out all those other years growing up. - FarWestGirl

                  by Rick Aucoin on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 07:14:38 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  The criminal trial, (12+ / 0-)

                (and I am certainly not a lawyer) as I understand it, is different from a civil lawsuit for the precise reasons you cite. The prosecutor represents the society -- not the victim. The adversarial argument is between the society and the defendant -- not the defendant and the victim. If the victim wants personal retribution, then they are entitled to file a civil suit to get it, and the civil suit (as with OJ) has a much lower standard of proof and makes it easier for the victim to win. The criminal sentence is about the threat and debt the perpetrator owes to society as a whole, and the victim is not the primary measure of that threat or debt.

                The criminal law is not designed to give the victim revenge, compensation, closure, and payback. That is what civil suits are for.

                And you are right that before the conservative revolution, it was the basis of our legal system that failing to convict the guilty was preferable to convicting the innocent. But the conservative revolution of the 1980s changed all that, and we haven't seen justice since. And we probably never will again, because it is hard to regain once lost, and an unjust society will eventually fall apart.

                The criminal law cannot make life "fair" for victims. It also cannot provide anything like perfect security and safety. This is not its purpose, and it is far beyond its capabilities.

                The false belief that the criminal system is designed to provide something for the victim, and that all victims deserve their personal  "pound of flesh", is what has turned our system from the best in the world to the worst. In the current belief system formed and maintained by the Reagan revolution, it is assumed the victim is innocent and "good". In fact, that is not a requirement at all, which is why the victim is not the benefactor of the criminal trial. The victim can be quite guilty and far from innocent. Since the criminal process does not consider and is not designed to consider what the victim has done to bring crime on themselves, this assumption is a source of great injustice, and is contrary to the actual design of the system. That is why the argument is between the society and the defendant -- not the victim and the defendant. Not all victims are "deserving" of retribution.

                Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities. Truth isn't.
                Mark Twain

                by phaktor on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 01:20:43 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I think that's the big thing that (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  lunachickie, milton333, phaktor

                  many people miss. I can't imagine that a jury doesn't take into consideration the person's background and whether they're likely to be a threat when they decide on a verdict.

                  I know they're not supposed to - but in reality it has to be a part of how they look at the evidence.

                  Is this person going to be a threat to society if they're not convicted? It has to be the unsaid consideration.

                  OJ Simpson wasn't likely to go out and shoot up a neighborhood. While he certainly was a threat to his ex-wife, he wasn't a threat to the community at large (a selfish bastard to be sure, and short on ethics/morals, but not a huge threat to society)

                  Casey Anthony isn't a threat to society either - and with a reasonable doubt, and no real likelihood that she's going to be shooting up a neighborhood anytime, she's acquitted.

                  I'm sure it happens more than you'd think.

                  •  Actually for OJ, the police problem in (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Pozzo, phaktor

                    LA contributed hugely to the verdict.  Someone that was in LA at the time said that the Rodney King problems helped give OJ a pass.  If he had been tried in Santa Monica where the case should have been tried, there would have been a different outcome.

                    •  Which shows the system (0+ / 0-)

                      actually functioned as it was supposed to. The issue was not between OJ and Nicole, but between OJ and the rules of civil society. The jury was acutely aware of the bias the system has for assuming black males to be guilty of violent crimes, and simply responded to the lack of evidence. This may not be fair for Nicole, but the criminal trial was not Nicole's day in court. The civil trial was, and she won.

                      To turn this around, take a look at the second criminal trial in which he was convicted of assualt or robbery or whatever it was. The victim was not a "victim" at all, and did everything possible to intice OJ to commit the "crime". The victim was not harmed, but was successful. None of this had any bearing on the outcome, and nobody complains. The issue was whether OJ broke the rules of civil society and how eggregious that violation was to society. Sometimes the criminal outcome is good for the victim, sometimes it isn't, but that is not the point of the criminal trial.

                      Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities. Truth isn't.
                      Mark Twain

                      by phaktor on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 02:39:14 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Criminal trials in this country are a crapshoot. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        phaktor
                        •  Of course they are, to some extent. (0+ / 0-)

                          I'm assuming you mean by this that whether the outcome of a trial is what you would like to see or what you believe is justice is, to some degree, a matter of chance. To some small degree it is, but for the most part the outcome is predictable in most cases -- guilty -- no matter what.

                          From one perspective, if there is enough information readily available to ascertain guilt or innocence, then there won't be a trial, anyway. The purpose of a trial is to "guess" what the truth is, which usually defaults to a popularity contest between police and defense attorneys. In our current society, police are more popular!

                          If the case is to be heard by a judge, then prosecutor might drop charges and (usually) try to negotiate a plea to a lesser crime if the evidence favors the defendant, and the defendant will plead guilty and try to get a deal if the evidence favors the prosecution. Only in cases where the evidence is not clear is there a trial by jury (and not always then, dependending on money -- poor defendants can't afford or risk a trial even if they are innocent). The very idea is that the jury decides what the truth is when it isn't clear from the facts what the truth is. Naturally, somebody must win, somebody must lose. Some people believe in advance that most defendants are guilty, and some people do not. The "crapshoot" is thus whether what you believe is agreed on by the jury, and chance is necessarily a player in that outcome. It has to be, because the process of choosing a jury begins with random selection. But chance effects are rather small in comparison to the forces of authoritarianism. The dice are loaded heavily in favor of the prosecution.

                          The problem is that juries, for the most part, in typical non-sensationalized cases, simply do not really concern themselves with trying to decide about guilt or innocence. The conservative authoritarianism which drives the belief systems of most Americans does not see the role of jurors as arbiters of truth. They see the purpose of the trial as punishment, and they believe moral duty of the juror is to support the rightful authorities of the state -- to support and defend the decisions of authorities (police and prosecutors).

                          High profile cases are not at all representative of the day-to-day outcomes in criminal prosecutions, because in these cases jurors are aware their performance is being evaluated and observed. In typical cases, they assume if anyone is responsible for the truth, it is the police and prosecutor. They thus simply unload that responsibility to those figures, and they "obey" authority. Juries thus misunderstand their role, and they are greatly effected by the predominant authoritarianism of the culture, which has increased exponentially as a result of the conservative movement. The tendency to agree with authority figures (police and prosecutors) is now so deeply ingrained in American culture that defendants in typical cases don't stand a chance. That is why good defense lawyers tend to avoid trials even when they have the best evidence. Trials no longer work the way they were envisioned by the creators of the justice system. That is because it is very, very hard to get a small group of randomly selected citizens -- who have been carefully screened to be sure they have never had any bad experiences with police or have never been accused of a crime -- to publicly tell authority figures that they are wrong. They just won't do it. People who participate in day-to-day typical criminal cases can tell you the horror stories. A person can be clearly innocent by evidence and they will still get convicted, normally, as a rule. Criminal defense work is typically centered on strategies which do not include trying to convince a jury of innocence -- a judge, perhaps -- but not a jury. This is because the judge understands his or her role -- but a jury does not. Trials are typically a losing proposition for defendants. All the forces are stacked against them -- even to the point of obvious innocence being regularly ignored. This is because jurors tend to obey authorities without question -- because this is the moral belief which drives conservative reasoning.

                          Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities. Truth isn't.
                          Mark Twain

                          by phaktor on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 08:21:58 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I have sat on two juries and actually (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Pozzo, phaktor

                            had a very mixed experience.  I have had the group think on authority scenario and the absolute opposite with in the same group, in both cases the jury hung. I would be interested in knowing the percentage of hung juries, my guess is that it is fairly high.

                          •  I don't know. (0+ / 0-)

                            But I think I understand why. It is a reflection of the larger schism in our society between conservative and liberal proponents which has calcified and become a barrier to any real progress or genuine constructive cooperation of any kind. It has its roots in the anti-war youth rebellion of the 1960s and the severe backlash to that movement which started a decade later. The backlash has now gone just about as far in the other direction as possible, to the point of threatening the constitution, but the conservatives just keep demanding more in their wild hate-fueled fury.

                            I know the conservative revolution has fostered two things: (1) a completely biased and incorrect view of criminal justice (which we have been discussing earlier in detail -- the authoritarian rubber-stamp philosophy), and (2) an absolute disrespect and viscous contempt for the process when it doesn't provide the outcome which conservative citizens want (which is an essential rubber stamping of the claims of prosecutors and police). It has gone on so long that memories of an actually fair system have vanished, and many innocent people are chewed up in it. Conservatives have tunnel vision. They unconditionally favor the prosecution, and they believe they know the facts of cases they rarely know anything about. They refuse to accept that their overall politically based beliefs about everyone's behavior and motives are not replicated in reality in every case. They overgeneralize and they tend to take wild leaps of inference to support conviction and punishment based on their overgeneralizations about human behavior  and their insistence that those who differ with them are part of a conspiracy of immorality.

                            This conservative poisoning of what was once actually a system which approached justice has been so strong and so hard fought that it has spread to the larger population. The conservative view has been promoted with such zeal that even liberals now accept some of the conservative bias as fact. For example, I, for one, am one of about three Americans who believe OJ Simpson did not kill Nicole. After all, my sentiment is based on the conclusion of a group of people who heard and saw all the facts that I had no access to, and which the average loudmouth who screams fanatically that “OJ is guilty” had no access to. Conservatives (and even now liberals) somehow believe these jurors were acting as part of a vast consiracy to set criminals free, as if the jury deserves no respect and dignity for their difficult work at all. This disrespect for juries, as shown in the absolutely absurd calls by the loudmouths today to "have the jurors arrested" in the Anthony case, is an indication of how little these people respect their fellow citizens who differ with them, how little they respect due process of law, and how little ability they have to even consider the possibility that their own politically based fantasy opinions might -- just might -- not be entirely 100% accurate.

                            If OJ had killed Nicole, there would have been some kind of conclusive evidence. The crime was too brutal and obviously too impulsive to have cleaned up the trail that well. And I am obviously one of a small minority who believes this Anthony woman did not kill the baby. I can even speculate on what happened here. I think it was quite clear from the information which did come out that she had good reason to hide an accidental drowning from her parents. She obviously had deep differences with them, and they were very inflexible. They were caught in a typical parental dance-of-death conflict with a daughter who had not met their expectations and who violated their rules of morality. They were predictably hostile and emotionally abusive to this woman who had not met their expectations as a daughter. In her confusion and fog, I believe she was simply running scared, knowing for sure her parents would blame her for the death and torture her with guilt, if not do things to really harm her financially or otherwise. There is an explanation for what she did, although the conservative is blinded to it because this is the way they treat their own children. Having a child who has strayed from the path, and learning what a truly loving parent -- a parent who takes seriously the obligation to stand by the children who did not ask to come into this world -- must do in such circumstances in order to maintain a relationship and perhaps really render some help, makes all this clearly possible and not at all unbelievable to me.

                            When it is universally agreed that a jury who heard all the facts simply got it wrong -- or even worse, that they intentially propogated injustice -- simply because they did not completely agree with the conservative's fantasy-based and media-based view of what happened, we are really at a deadlock.

                            Now conservatives are introducing bills in state legislatures everywhere to make it a felony to do what this woman did. This shows how these people think. Of course, I don't think that would have mattered to this woman. She was simply reacting to a complex and stressful situation in ways governed pretty much by chance and luck and confusion and fear. So, conservatives now want to create more laws – more felonies – ripe for ensnaring the innocent -- as if we don't have enough. I am sorry these people think the world is a vast left wing conspiracy obsessed with a goal to set criminals free in their communities, but it just simply is not. It just is not. And I resent their insistence that those of us who beg to differ with their rabid opinions are simply evil people who enjoy setting criminals free because we are criminals ourselves, or we are entertained by the carnage, or we are simply stupid people with knee-jerk sympathy for defendants. Sometimes what the conservative wants to believe is just not true. But that doesn't matter, because most of time, they get their way whether they are right or not. But they are still never satisfied. And we all have to live with the results of the bizarre injustices which their short-sightedness is visiting upon us and promises to visit upon our progeny. It is getting worse, and it is time to stop ignoring these people. They are destroying our society.

                            Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities. Truth isn't.
                            Mark Twain

                            by phaktor on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 09:42:50 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                •  They should teach this in school (4+ / 0-)

                  As part of civics education.  How the legal system actually works.

                  Pas de bras, pas de chocolat!

                  by nominalize on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 06:23:43 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Victims are certainly part of the picture in (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  milton333, phaktor

                  our system by evidenced of victim's statements, whether they should be or not is another question.  

            •  Yes. (0+ / 0-)

              With sadness, with empathy, but earnestly.  Yes.

              If it were my child someone was getting away with murdering?

              Well, the court would be the least of the person's problems.  But that's another issue entirely, isn't it.

              Yeah, imagine a skinny, beaky kid with an unfortunate last name, still trying to get approval and feel attractive and liked to cancel out all those other years growing up. - FarWestGirl

              by Rick Aucoin on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 01:16:56 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You floor me with this statement, (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                sargoth
                If it were my child someone was getting away with murdering?
                .  A co worker and I had a conversation about this and she polled a group of friends and the men said exactly that, they would protect their child at all costs and the women said they would turn them in.  I was raised by my father and I know for a fact that he would have turned me in.  It would have crushed him and I know he loved me with every fiber of his being  but he would have helped me to the right thing, no matter what the personal cost to himself and to me.  
            •  Would they rather the wrong prson be punished (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Rick Aucoin

              another crime committed? Jeez

          •  By the way, this is flat out wrong (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            soros, happymisanthropy, Pozzo, milton333
            If you cannot prove that someone, themselves, with their own hands, committed murder then you have failed to reach the standard of proof in our legal system.
            .  
            •  How so? (7+ / 0-)

              If you are charging them with committing a murder you have to... prove that they themselves committed a murder.

              If you are charging them with hiring someone else to perform a murder for you, it has to be proven that they hired someone to perform murder for them.

              It is NOT enough to say "This person died, and this other person probably had something to do with it.  We're not positively sure what they had to do with it, but we're pretty damn sure they had something to do with it, so let's convict them of murder."

              Yeah, imagine a skinny, beaky kid with an unfortunate last name, still trying to get approval and feel attractive and liked to cancel out all those other years growing up. - FarWestGirl

              by Rick Aucoin on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 01:21:23 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Simple scenario (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                milton333

                You see a man and a woman walk into a room.  They shut the door.  As you walk past the room, you hear a slap, and the woman cries out.   She opens the door, walks out and says, "He hit me".  

                There is no physical evidence that he hit her.

                The prosecution can prove that he walked into the room with her.  The prosecution can prove that she was hit.  The prosecution, however, cannot prove that he was the one who hit her.  He spins some fantastic story about a ninja who crawled down from the ceiling and hit her.

                That is where "reasonable doubt" enters into the equation.  

                •  From this crowd the answer would be (0+ / 0-)

                  the woman is a liar because her father molested her as a child or maybe it is the man may have hit her but because he was molested, it did not happen.  

                •  Yeah, reasonable. (0+ / 0-)

                  If he spins a yarn about Ninja's then he's not introduced "reasonable" doubt, has he.

                  If he claims "WTF, she slapped herself on the face, she's nuts, I didn't do anything" and the defense brings some witnesses saying the woman has a history of such allegations...

                  Well, then we've introduced reasonable doubt.

                  Because no one could PROVE the guy actually slapped her.

                  If they had video tape of the events in the room, then they have the proof they need.

                  Otherwise, it's he said/she said, isn't it.

                  Yeah, imagine a skinny, beaky kid with an unfortunate last name, still trying to get approval and feel attractive and liked to cancel out all those other years growing up. - FarWestGirl

                  by Rick Aucoin on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 11:28:37 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  Agreed... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lakehillsliberal, milton333
      There is more than enough evidence in those statements alone to convict her of manslaughter and child abuse.

      The vast circumstantial evidence pointed to Ms Anthony's guilt of manslaughter at the very least, that is, if one looks at the whole picture and isn't expecting an episode of CSI.

      "Patients are not consumers" - Paul Krugman

      by assyrian64 on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 02:01:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Actually... (9+ / 0-)

      These facts were never proven, and that was a problem for me and the jurors.

      Fact:  Casey Anthony was the last person so see her daughter alive.

      Fact: The child was murdered by suffocation(the drowning story is bs, otherwise why use duct tape across her face).  

      As for this...

      Fact:  She abandoned her car for no apparent reason and when her parents went to retrieve it, they reported that it smelled of some sort of decay.

      ...the prosecution was never able to prove that it was, in fact, human decomposition. The expert witnesses did not agree. George's and Cindy's impressions of the odor may have been colored by the concern about their missing granddaughter. A foul, ambiguous odor may have smelled like what they feared that it smelled like.

      I've been arguing with friends and family about this and I've been asking them this: Even if you don't believe the drowning in the pool story, is it possible that this was an accident?

      •  The whole story does not hold together, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        milton333

        if she died in the pool and her father knew about it, he would have called the police, being a former police officer in FLA, children die in pool accidents all the time.  It would have been over.  In fact, if Casey had drowned her in the pool, they would have had less evidence than they actually had.  No duct tape, no car, no ridiculous lies about a nanny named Zanny.

        •  I wondered about that, if he had been molesting (0+ / 0-)

          Caylee he probably didn't want a medical examiner looking too closely at her. So the THEORY of him covering it up could be true too. As for less evidence, don't think so, would have had a cause of death, been able to look for abuse among other things.

    •  They never proved how she died (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lunachickie
  •  this case has been Huge in the news here-- (8+ / 0-)

    the family is originally from here,
    and their relatives have been endlessly interviewed.

    the general consensus is that people Think that the
    mother is guilty as sin, and are pissed off that she
    got off.

    having said that:  if the evidence wasn't there beyond
    any doubt----

    the jury did the right thing.  

    and that's all there is to it.  we may Think: guilty.

    but until it is Proved....and that's our system---

    which we Hate when we think somebody's gotten away
    with murder,

    but we Love--if we were the ones being tried.

  •  Tipped and Recced! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    psychodrew, lunachickie

    I was a bit surprised to see so much rabid hostility regarding the case considering it was rarely mentioned around here before the verdict.

  •  Unfortunately, it sometimes (7+ / 0-)

    takes the heat of public scrutiny for jurors to do the right thing. Without it, people tend to go along with authority because they are afraid to rock the boat.

    In most cases like this which are not publicized and do not become media circuses, juries tend to return guilty verdicts. They do this because of the effects which the conservative revolution has had on the public's ability to understand our legal system, the legal process, and its purposes and goals. Jurors do not understand what they are supposed to do, even though it is explained. Since education has been sabotaged in the U.S., explanation of their responsibilties rarely does any good.

    Most Americans believe things about the legal system which are simply not true. They believe if a person is on trial they are presumed guilty or should be presumed guilty. They believe they are doing something wrong if they disagree with, or fail to comply with the wishes of, authority figures like police and prosecutors. In small communities, they are actually afraid of retribution from police and prosecutors.

    Because of these and other erroneous beliefs, they tend to return guilty verdicts without doing their jobs -- the job of hearing the arguments of both sides (they assume this is the judge's job, and it is not). The primary problem is that they do not understand the role the jury is supposed to play. They believe the police and the prosecutors have already done what the jury is supposed to do and are expected to do. They believe the police and the prosecutors have weighed the facts in a fair and impartial manner, and have rightfully determined a defendant is guilty. They do not understand that paying serious attention to facts and evidence which tend to support the defendant is not the job of the police and prosecutors. It is the job of the jury.

    The primary responsibility of the police is public safety, and their job is to assume guilt when they suspect it, even if they are not sure. It is the job of the prosecutors to do the same with some minor modifications. The jury members are the ONLY people in the system who are assigned the responsibility of being impartial and listening to the defendant's side of the story. The public does not understand this. They believe the equivalent of a fair trial has actually occurred -- has already been conducted by the police and prosecutors, or even the judge (who basically does absolutely nothing in the area of evaluating guilt or innocence) -- before the formal trial takes place. It is no wonder they always return guilty verdicts! They think the judge has already tried the case in his mind, or there wouldn't be a trial! This is nonsense, as the judge has no say in it! But this is what people assume.

    They also have been conditioned by the conservative philosophy to judge people instead of facts. They tend to believe the question at trial is whether the person is a good or bad person, and whether it is fair for them to be left alone to live their lives unpunished. This is not the purpose of a trial. The purpose of the trial is to determine if the defendant actually did the crime with which they are charged. In the public's eye, the purpose of the trial is to determine if the person is good or bad, likable or unlikable, moral or immoral, etc. The issue of their actual guilt is, as explained earlier, assumed to be already determined.

    This woman was not on trial for being a slut, a whore, a liar, a bad parent or anything other than murder. The state did not prove she committed murder. The most serious injustice of the attitudes cultivated by the conservative movement is the public's belief that the trial is sort of a "golden opportunity" to punish "bad people" regardless of actual guilt in the crime charged. This is the most serious and inhuman miscarriage of justice in America, and it is rampant.

    The public tends to do what the legal system is designed to protect the defendant from. The public is swayed and pursusaded by the shocking and disturbing nature of a crime and the innocence and misfortune of the victim, and they tend to want somebody to be held responsible. The problem is, any old "bad" person who is available will do, especially if they believe that the "bad" person has already received a fair shake from the police and the prosecutor.

    This is the recipe for the opposite of justice, and it is the norm in America.

    Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities. Truth isn't.
    Mark Twain

    by phaktor on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 12:49:04 AM PDT

    •  Not due to conservatism (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pozzo, snackdoodle, sargoth, phaktor

      Juror bias towards authority has been a part of juries since juries existed.  

      Remember, all those cases establishing precedents of defendants' constitutional rights are appeals of convictions by juries who saw no problem with the law.

      However, juries have also ignored authority on a lot of occasions, infamously on occasion, when they pull some jury nullification.

      ~~~

      I think, and I think you'll agree, that basic legal procedure should be taught in schools, a sort of 'micro-civics' to go along with 'macro-civics' of how government works.  

      Pas de bras, pas de chocolat!

      by nominalize on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 06:32:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thank you for (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    esquimaux, vcmvo2, cpresley

    a calm, reasoned approach to this. I don't generally follow every breathless turn of sensationalist cases, but what I've learned from reading in the last day or so is that much, if not most, of the conviction-by-public-opinion of the mother was driven by a commentator on CNN, who is supposedly a journalist and is a lawyer, of sorts.

    At the same time, across the pond we have the shame of the Murdock mess being exposed as rock after rock is turned over. Not a whole lot of difference in approach, it seems to me.

    Yes, the jury did the right thing. No, the state of Florida did not prove its case. Is the mother guilty? Maybe, maybe not. But once the cops had a viable suspect, chances are pretty good that they said, OK that's enough, no need to look further.
     

    Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why. -- Hunter S. Thompson

    by Mnemosyne on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 01:12:58 AM PDT

  •  A classic case (5+ / 0-)

    where Scots law has an advantage. In Scotland, there is a third verdict available to a jury, that of "Not Proven". This still counts as an acquittal but is in effect a finding that there is substantial evidence but insufficient to provide proof beyond reasonable doubt.

    From what I have seen of this case, the mother appears to have profound personality defects, if you like a Walter Mitty character. However the scenario spun by the State is so bizarre as to be unbelievable. Much, for example, was made of the Google search for chloroform. If she had wanted to kill the child, why the elaborate preparation? Why, for example, not just drown the child claiming precisely the circumstances put forward by the defense? Instead the prosecution put forward the case that she had produced the chloroform, used it to render the child unconscious and then suffocated her deliberately.

    Now actually the first part of that may well be true, let's look at the curious case of 'Zannie the Nanny'. As was pointed out in one of the Anderson Cooper 360 interviews (not with the bleach blond tabloid TV court reporter who seemed to be another example of a failed lawyer not even being good enough to be a public prosecutor). 'Zannies' is slang for Xanax which might be relevant here as the contra effects are:

    unusual risk-taking behavior, decreased inhibitions, no fear of danger;
    depressed mood, thoughts of suicide or hurting yourself;
    hyperactivity, agitation, hostility, hallucinations;

    A less serious side effect is to cause drowsiness.

    Now let's suppose that the mother used (or abused) Xanax herself and also used it on the child to sedate her while she went out partying.

    What then if she either ran out of prescribed tablets, because she was sharing them, or could not access enough to keep employing 'Zannie' as a babysitter? Taking her inspiration from the numerous scenes in movies where chloroform it used to knock out people, she decides to take that route. There may even have been a bizarre choice to use that in the belief it was 'safer' than illegally administered drugs.

    What of course is never shown in those movies and the prosecution forgot are the serious dangers in its use:

    Fatal oral dose of chloroform may be as low as 10 mL (14.8 g), with death due to respiratory or cardiac arrest.[23]

    As might be expected for an anesthetic, chloroform vapors depress the central nervous system. It is immediately dangerous to life and health at approximately 500 ppm, according to the U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Breathing about 900 ppm for a short time can cause dizziness, fatigue, and headache. Chronic chloroform exposure can damage the liver (where chloroform is metabolized to phosgene) and to the kidneys, and some people develop sores when the skin is immersed in chloroform.

    Something similar is not unknown. Victorian nannies, taking their lead from early formulations of gripe water would give their charges a swig of their own alcohol to give both 'a good night's sleep'. Some were even found holding babies over (unlit) gas rings until they were overcome by the toxic town gas then used.

    Now using chemicals to knock a child out so you can go out partying, possibly under the influence of illegally obtained drugs, is not exactly textbook childcare. But an unintended death resulting from this abuse amount to first degree murder?  You will see if the prosecution had used this scenario for a lesser charge relating to an accidental death during the 'tender ministrations' of a disassociated mother, they would probably have painted a far more convincing picture for the jury.

    "Israel was born out of Jewish terrorism." Sir Gerald Kaufman, British MP and son of Holocaust survivor.

    by Lib Dem FoP on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 03:57:08 AM PDT

    •  Where did she get the chloroform? Walgreens? (0+ / 0-)
      •  Well, Grainger's will sell me a (0+ / 0-)

        half liter for $31- and my local has it for pick-up, so it'd take me about 15 minutes round-trip.

        It's a solvent fairly commonly used in some kitchen reactions... I wouldn't be at all surprised to find some kicking around if folks liked to party that way.

    •  The problem with 'Not Proven' is that it's (0+ / 0-)

      tantamount to saying "Guilty, sentenced to time served."

      And in this country, with this media. . . . that might well be an invitation to vigilante justice.

      We don't want our country back, we want our country FORWARD. --Eclectablog

      by Samer on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 06:41:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You have just illustrated the reasonable... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sargoth

      doubt in this case.

      It is entirely plausible that the mother was drugging her child to go out.  

      It is equally plausible that by accident, the child died as a result of this drugging and that this was the motivation for hiding the body and lying to the police.

      Without more solid evidence, there was insufficient grounds for conviction.  The mother was clearly guilty of something, but murder was not proven.

      “Tax and Spend” I can understand. I can even understand “Borrow and Spend”. But “Borrow and Give Tax Cuts to Billionaires”? That I have a problem with.

      by LiberalCanuck on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 09:56:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  With Crime Crime Crime TV (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    psychodrew

    it's no wonder 1 in 100 in prison doesn't lead to mass action.

    I forget what the %s are, but significant are:

    -not yet had trial (not proven guilty)
    -criminiliazation of poverty
    -War on (some) Drugs
    -war on mentally ill

    not to mention increasing numbers for

    -war on pregnant women
    -war on dissent

    The boss needs you, you don't need him. -- France general strike, May 1968

    by stargaze on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 04:22:00 AM PDT

  •  Pfft. Guilty.i (9+ / 0-)

    Im not "blaming the jury". It is what it is. Nor do I "need" to feel that someone is to "blame" because the child is cute.

    The verdict is what it is. I can't change it. But the woman is guilty. She got off because no one wants to believe a young pretty white girl could be such a sociopathic narcissistic monster. If it was my black behind on trial, I'd be on death row today.

    Guilty.

    The question, THE question, is how long would it take YOU to call 911 when your 2 year old was missing? An hour? A day? A MONTH? How about never? (which is how long it took authorities to be notified of this missing child by casey's own mother).

    I live in FL and have followed this case. I dont want to type a dissertation.

    Guilty.

    •  you're just plain wrong (8+ / 0-)

      ...the jury did the right thing. waiting to call 911 is not physical evidence linking Casey Anthony to murder. try again.

      the fact is, there is no evidence linking Casey Anthony to a murder. none. zero. zip. nada. zilch.

      the prosecution couldn't even prove how the little girl died, let alone that she was murdered. and they definitely did NOT prove she was murdered by Casey Anthony, and like it or not, that's the standard for conviction.

      whether you believe she did it is totally irrelevant.

      "An inglorious peace is better than a dishonorable war." -Mark Twain

      by humanistique on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 06:15:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But true (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        antimony, vcmvo2, moira977, milton333
        If it was my black behind on trial, I'd be on death row today.
      •  You Know (7+ / 0-)

        If physical evidence were required to convict someone of murder, a whole lot of murderers would be walking the street free today instead of in prison.

        I'm not sure where folks got the idea that you had to have "physical evidence" to convict someone of a crime.  Many many many convictions are based on nothing more than circumstantial evidence, including murder convictions.  So whether you believe it SHOULD be different is irrelevant.

        If you don't stand for something, you will go for anything. Visit Maat's Feather

        by shanikka on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 06:42:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Spot on (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CanyonWren, Darmok, MidlandTXLiberal

          If you aqcuit merely on no "physical evidence" you are rewarding evidence tampering, obstruction of justice and witness intimidation.

        •  a lot of innocent people are in prison (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          snackdoodle, samanthab

          ...because ignorant and/or racist juries don't take seriously or care about the burden of proof in murder cases.

          none of this changes the fact that there is absolutely no evidence, physical or otherwise, that links Casey Anthony to murder.

          "An inglorious peace is better than a dishonorable war." -Mark Twain

          by humanistique on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 07:00:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Further reason (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            milton333

            not to worship juries and make them above reproach. Juries quite often get it wrong. This may be one of those cases. They get it wrong the other way, too.

          •  I'm Well Aware of (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Pozzo, esquimaux, Ice Blue

            Both ignorance and racism and how it impacts the justice system.  However, that does detract from the legal reality that you do not need physical evidence to convict someone of a crime.  That's just the law.

            As far as whether there is any evidence re:  Casey Anthony, I disagree.  There is quite a bit of circumstantial evidence.  Just not enough to overcome the legal requirement of acquittal absent the elimination of reasonable doubt.  Thus the jury did what it is supposed to have done.  And you won't see me faulting the jury for that.

            But if you want to talk about racism for a minute, you'd be dishonest if you did not admit that you have never heard of a Black woman being accused of murdering her young child in similar (or even dissimilar) circumstances who was acquitted on the grounds of "there is no proof" when the circumstances were anywhere near like those alleged in the Anthony case.  Quite the opposite.  Usually, there is a picture of the mother looking fighteningly ghetto or crazy published prominently in the newspaper and its legally down hill for her from there.

            If you don't stand for something, you will go for anything. Visit Maat's Feather

            by shanikka on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 07:06:54 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  so circumstantial evidence is not enough (0+ / 0-)

              ...to convict in this murder case. i really did not know that absolutely NO physical evidence is required in a murder trial. that's really fucked up. hopefully, no jury with a conscience would convict without a shred of physical evidence.

              when did i say an unjust guilty verdict wouldn't have been likely if the defendant were black?

              "An inglorious peace is better than a dishonorable war." -Mark Twain

              by humanistique on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 07:25:23 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  WHy is this (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Darmok, milton333
                really did not know that absolutely NO physical evidence is required in a murder trial. that's really fucked up.

                So if a murderer leaves no physicial evidence or destroys it, he gets a free pass? There's a famous case in CT where a guy fed his wife through a woodchipper and fed her to the fish in a river. Should he be allowed to walk?

              •  Well, Now You Know (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Pozzo, milton333

                Because physical evidence isn't required.  Evidence may be of any character (direct or indirect/circumstantial) and assuming it is otherwise admissible it is up to the trier of fact/jury to determine how reliable it is and what weight it will have towards reaching a verdict (absent a specific instruction from the judge about how to treat the evidence.)

                If you don't stand for something, you will go for anything. Visit Maat's Feather

                by shanikka on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 07:33:35 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  okay thanks (0+ / 0-)

                  ...but it still seems like some people believe she should have been convicted because a black woman would have been, which is incredibly twisted.

                  "An inglorious peace is better than a dishonorable war." -Mark Twain

                  by humanistique on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 07:43:18 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  OK (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    buddabelly

                    This is a reading comprehension test.  Show me where anyone has said that Casey Anthony should have been convicted because a Black woman would have been.

                    I'll wait.

                    If you don't stand for something, you will go for anything. Visit Maat's Feather

                    by shanikka on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 08:00:28 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  don't talk down to me (0+ / 0-)

                      ...it's not necessary.

                      that's how i read mdmslle's comment on the topic. she said Casey Anthony is guilty (based on nothing) and that she (mdmslle) would have been on death row.

                      "An inglorious peace is better than a dishonorable war." -Mark Twain

                      by humanistique on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 08:08:47 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I'm Not (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        buddabelly

                        But I am also years tired of majoritarian folks here at DailyKOS reading stuff into comments involving race that is simply not present in the comment.  To me, that's as much an insult as you claiming I am "talking down to you."  Mdmslle expressed her opinion, just as you did, about the overall verdict and why she thought it was wrong.  However, at no time did she assert that the only reason for her opinion about what outcome should have faced Casey Anthony is that a Black woman would have gone down for the crime on the same facts.  And since she didn't you should not have assumed it.

                        If you don't stand for something, you will go for anything. Visit Maat's Feather

                        by shanikka on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 08:23:14 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  reading comprehension (0+ / 0-)

                          ...involves reading between the lines. and no, mdmslle didn't say the only reason for her opinion about what outcome should have faced Casey Anthony is that a Black woman would have gone down for the crime on the same facts.

                          "An inglorious peace is better than a dishonorable war." -Mark Twain

                          by humanistique on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 08:36:16 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

            •  Well, and also the world ends if a guilty woman (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              shanikka

              gets off for murder of one child, but there's no ubiquitous public outcry over children dying of inadequate medical treatment all the time. Or the children dying of global hunger. Who gives a damn about those children? If their moms weren't in hot bodies contests, do they really exist?

          •  Disagree: there is circumstantial evidence. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Darmok, milton333

            A LOT of circumstantial evidence.

            You said: "there is absolutely no evidence, physical or otherwise, that links Casey Anthony to murder." The jury verdict was probably correct on this case, but by a fraction.  "Expert" testimony seems to be the sword with which to persuade.    

            Sarah Palin: All pistol and no squint.

            by CanyonWren on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 08:12:47 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Thank You For Saying (5+ / 0-)

      What I have thought ever since I heard.  If this was a not a pretty, young, white girl, Casey Anthony would have never seen the light of day again.  I'm a believer in the justice system and at least as a matter of criminal law, reasonable doubt existed and legally an acquittal was the right outcome.  The lawyer in me knows that to be true, and I am not going to fault the jury or accuse it of stupidity because of that.  I just wish that folks who are so determined to come up with every excuse in the book about what may have happened to this child to justify Casey Anthony's acquittal were as hell-bent to defend Black mothers based upon that same standard of reasonable doubt when they are accused of the heinous act of killing their own children.

      If you don't stand for something, you will go for anything. Visit Maat's Feather

      by shanikka on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 06:41:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Absolutely (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pozzo, Ice Blue

      A racist system.  I'm a white lawyer, not a criminal attorney, but appointed by the court in juvenile and abuse/neglect cases.  It's an incredibly racist system.  And you bet your "black behind," as you say, that you'd have been convicted on the same evidence.  On far less evidence.

      Moreover, if my baby had disappeared, you'd hear my howls of anguish round the globe.  You could not shut me up.  And if my baby dies accidentally, I'm practically catatonic with shock and grief.  I'm not out partying and letting guys do shots off my navel.  It just doesn't ring true, it's not how a mother behaves.

      Thought is only a flash in the middle of a long night, but the flash that means everything - Henri Poincaré

      by milton333 on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 11:16:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I was a juror (20+ / 0-)

    I spent 2.5 weeks as a juror on a murder trial. We ended up hung.
    When it was over I went back and read the local media - so much that was written about the trial was WRONG! Things that were never presented in the courtroom were printed in the paper as "evidence" - and the comment section ughh - people were seriously pissed! It was distressing at first as the time on the jury was stressful to begin with & to come out & realize that the general public had no clue and they were mad at me! I got over it but it was not nearly what the Anthony jurors are probably going through. I feel for those people.
    Footnote: the guy plead guilty a year later, a few weeks before his next trial.

    •  And this is exactly what happened (4+ / 0-)

      here in Orlando:

      Things that were never presented in the courtroom were printed in the paper as "evidence"

      THIS is exactly why so many are so pissed off about the Anthony verdict.

      90% of the stuff broadcast on tv and printed in the paper presented as "evidence" WAS NOT EVIDENCE.

       It's opinion, it's supposition, it's judgment. And everyone who has convicted this woman is basing their verdict on that which was not evidence. Had all that stuff been put forth as evidence, it would have been thrown out as being irrelevant.

      So all these otherwise reasonable people I know have forgotten their civics lessons. Assuming they ever got any.

      REPEAL the Telecomm Act & REVIEW this decision. NO journalist should be fired because their boss can't have the truth told.

      by lunachickie on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 07:16:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Well, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    esquimaux

    I guess that if I gave one flying fuck about this whole thing, I might actually care. Sensationalized individual crime that has no effect on my life, my friends/family, or my country hold zero interest. People need to get a life. This is just the media version of bread and circuses to distract the masses from real problems facing all of us.

    Just another day in Oceania.

    by drshatterhand on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 04:59:28 AM PDT

  •  I completely agree. (5+ / 0-)

    Casey Anthony might be guilty. But in our country, the state has to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that one committed a crime before being deprived of freedom or life. They failed to do that here. Sometimes, a guilty person going free is a sign that the system worked.

  •  Look! A missing white girl! (8+ / 0-)

    The whole Caylee Anthony freak show is a monumental distraction orchestrated by Our Craven Corporate Media™, drawing attention away from the collapse of the middle class, global warming, an economy circling the drain, a Supreme Court bought and paid for by corporate interests, and the ongoing rape of America by its wealthiest members.

    From the O.J. Simpson murders to Monica to Chandra Levy, it's a never-ending Jerry Springer freak show trailer park parade. All crime, all the time. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

  •  Actually I was afraid they would find her (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Otteray Scribe, eataTREE

    guilty.  But just like OJ the state didn't prove their case and the jury was led by the evidence or lack of it to the right decision. We should applaud them for diligently doing their jobs.

  •  with all due respect (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BDA in VA, Samer, Darmok, milton333

    You have no idea about this:

    The jury that had given up their jobs, had been sequestered, had patiently listened to all the evidence presented to them by the State of Florida decided that the State of Florida had not met its burden.  They decided that the State had not proved how little Caylee died or where or when or who was with her or if anyone was legally responsible

    Neither you nor I nor anyone else has any idea if they listened patietenly or sat there singing tunes in their heads or kept muttering to themselves "when is this going to end?" We dont know if they rationally decided the state failed to to prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt or if they just wanted to go home  or if they bought the unsupported allegations made by the defense. I agree jury duty is serious business and we shoud not "bash" jurors, but they are not immune to criticism.
  •  The verdict in both the Anthony case (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CanyonWren, snackdoodle, Ice Blue

    as well as the OJ Simpson case was not due to the brilliance of the defense as much as the incompetence of  the prosecution.  

    The scary thing to me is that now, in Florida, Jose Baez is now the "go to" guy if you are charged with murder.

  •  Excellent Diary (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Samer, SpamNunn, lunachickie

    I hadn't been following the case closely.  But I think that whenever the prosecution is presenting emotional evidence, I get suspicious of their case.  Emotional evidence is not real evidence.  It's not relevant, it's simply there to convince a jury to vote a certain way when there is no actual evidence to support their contentions.  

    If she was guilty of murder, I'd say she should be locked up for life or perhaps even given the death penalty.  But we cannot lock people up for crimes the state can't prove were actually committed (where do people think we live?  Italy?).  The prosecution couldn't prove how Caylee Anthony died.  If they can't prove the cause of death, they can't convict someone of murder of that person.  Why?  Because we don't know that the person was actually murdered.  

    Finally, as to all the ignoramuses who post on the internet, screaming about Casey's guilt, I think that it actually makes me think Casey might be innocent.  You see, there is a LOT of ignorance about the law out there.  Thus, it is entirely possible to me that Caylee drowned in an accident (two year old toddlers, swimming pools, and inattentive mothers don't mix) and her mother was either too embarassed to admit it or too ashamed or thought she had committed a crime.  On fear of committing a crime, she might have decided to cover up the body and then lie about it (ironically, committing a real crime in the process).  It seems to me that many of the ignoramuses convinced of her guilt and screaming for us to move to a more Iranian style of justice might do the very same thing if it ever happenned to them.  

    R.I.P. Warren Christopher (1925-2011), statesman, diplomat, reformer, and friend.

    by SoCalLiberal on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 06:26:01 AM PDT

  •  Bullshit (6+ / 0-)

    I live in Florida and work with people who know the prosecution team pretty well - all of us lawyers.  The jury checked its common sense at the door, as has this diarist.  Yes, it was circumstantial evidence, but it was strong circumstantial evidence.  Yes, there were some holes -mainly because the Orlando police did not respond when the body was first found.  But to say that this woman did not in fact kill her daughter is fantasy, pure and simple - it might possibly have been an accident in a sense, in that she overdosed the child while trying to keep her quiet, and then hid it.  But the prosecution was absolutely correct - and this woman is a sociopath who I only pray never has more children.

    This was a victory for sleazy tactics on the part of the defense, to make allegations in the opening statement that could not be proven and that in fact they never mentioned again.  It's simple horseshit to act as if Casey Anthony is in any way a sympathetic character - she's a liar, and in my opinion a sociopath.  

    •  Sorry (4+ / 0-)
      Yes, it was circumstantial evidence, but it was strong circumstantial evidence

      you're wrong--just because you claim to be a Florida lawyer, you weren't there, and you do not know any better than anyone else who was not there.

       And if you're going to sit there and insist that you are, then get off your computer and get your ass to Orlando and talk to the judge and the prosecutors, and present your irrefutable evidence. Keep us posted with your progress.
       

      REPEAL the Telecomm Act & REVIEW this decision. NO journalist should be fired because their boss can't have the truth told.

      by lunachickie on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 07:23:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sleazy tactics, indeed. eom (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      moira977

      Sarah Palin: All pistol and no squint.

      by CanyonWren on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 08:15:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I get the same feeling about her being (0+ / 0-)

      a textbook sociopath.  

      Some Kossacks boast of their fine-tuned gaydar.  I like to think I'm pretty good at spotting character disorders.  Sometimes I just get a gut reaction that says, stay away from this person no matter how friendly they act.  I'm very seldom wrong.  
       

      Never meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer.--Bruce Graham

      by Ice Blue on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 12:59:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I have to agree (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    husl piper 11, snackdoodle

    I haven't followed the tabloid news side of this story, but after the verdict I read the trial summary provided by Reuters, and it appeared to me that the prosecution had utterly failed to present a case.

    This is a classical reasonable doubt case, sad to say. Although it is obvious that there is a responsible party  who should be held accountable fort his death, there is no solid evidence as to who that responsible party is.

    And while this case is very tragic, I try to remember how many other tragic cases of abused and murdered children go entirely unnoticed and ignored by our sensation-driven media, but who deserve no less care or attention from the criminal justice system.

    Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity...

    by surfbird007 on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 06:43:52 AM PDT

  •  The good news is that OJ has announced he (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pozzo, the fan man

    we will look for the actual killer for as long as it takes.

    Preemptive war is like committing suicide for fear of death

    by thestructureguy on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 06:52:13 AM PDT

  •  I served on a murder jury once (5+ / 0-)

    There was no question that the guy was guilty - in fact, there was no real defense presented. However, when we went into the jury room, we very seriously went through all of the charges, added up what we heard in the courtroom, and voted on each one. There was even one charge where there was some disagreement - the defendant was driving a car that was stolen 3 days earlier, and there was a good half-hour spent going back-and-forth as to whether that was enough to convict him with auto theft.

    We took our oath seriously, and we went where the evidence led. Four months later I read that he'd been sentenced to life and that he had a rap sheet literally six feet long - all petty crime like B&E.

    Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað

    by milkbone on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 06:55:49 AM PDT

  •  All the prosecution proved (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SpamNunn, Brooke In Seattle

    was that Caylee had died and her mom probably knew about it.  That's it.  The jury wasn't ready to send Casey to death row over that and I support them.

  •  Thank you for this diary (7+ / 0-)

    It's bad enough when people without the most basic understanding of the law or the Constitution feel fit to be judge and jury. It's worse when people who went to law school (I'm looking at you Nancy Grace) inflame, sensationalize, and encourage an emotional feeding frenzy.

    We view "The Handmaid's Tale" as cautionary. The GOP views it as an instruction book.

    by Vita Brevis on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 07:06:13 AM PDT

    •  People without the most basic understanding (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      milton333

      of the law and the Constitution sit on juries all the time. Sure, they get the cliff notes version in the charge to the jury, but let's not kid oursevlse that jurors are solons of the Constitution. In fact, the more you know about it, the less likely you are to sit on a jury in most cases.

      •  I'm not kidding myself that jurors are (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cpresley

        scholars of the Constitution. The jury however, was presented with material that those screaming and protesting on the street were not privvy to, and it was the public not the jury, to whom I was referring.

        The jury was responsible to process that information within a specific context.

        We view "The Handmaid's Tale" as cautionary. The GOP views it as an instruction book.

        by Vita Brevis on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 07:56:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Larger point (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          milton333

          is that none of us has any idea what they did with this info. They didn't give a press conference afterwards. We weren't there. Yes, It is possible that they rationally thought this through and correctly applied the judges charging instructions on the standard of proof and acquitted. We also don't know if they tuned out large parts of the trial. Most of what goes in a trial, while relevant, is far from riveting. We just don't know. I concede that they may have gotten this one right, even though I still believe that Casey is responsible for Cayle’s death. This is a hard case to prove with no  proverbial "smoking gun." So I am not willing to call these jurors idiots or what have you. I am also not willing give them a free pass on scrutiny and gush all over about how great the jury system is, when in fact it's quite severely flawed.

          •  I agree that there is almost nothing (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Pozzo, cpresley

            that can't be improved. Certainly over the course of our history, the jury system has had its problems. No argument. Overall, I'll take it vs the alternative.

            The jury's not obligated to give a press conference. I think it's better that juries do their duty and then stay out of the media spotlight.

            For the record, I don't think Casey Anthony is innocent. Whether it was murder or manslaughter I don't know. But I think the prosecution didn't prove their case, and like it or not, with the system we have the burden is on them to do so.

            We view "The Handmaid's Tale" as cautionary. The GOP views it as an instruction book.

            by Vita Brevis on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 08:26:41 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Re: ;the press conferences (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Vita Brevis

              I know they aren't obligated to. But it would have been a source of knowledge for us, probably the best chance we'd ever get to know what they really felt. I don't fault them for not doing it. I don't think I would have. I am just saying the best source of insight as to what they were thinking is forever lost.

    •  What's even more ironic is that all the people (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Vita Brevis, Brooke In Seattle

      commenting on the news websites saying that the jury are a bunch of idiots, somebody should kill her, blah blah blah, are the first ones bitching about their constitutional rights whenever someone proposes making it slightly more difficult to buy an assault rifle.

      Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.

      by yg17 on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 07:36:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  There Was No Other Possible Verdict (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CanyonWren, snackdoodle

    for the sake of justice.

    Now we need law enforcement to back to work and find the perp -- if in fact it was murder and not a totally dysfunctional family's response to a tragic but accidental death.

    If murder is still suspected, start looking at grandpa.

    Readers & Book Lovers Pull up a chair! You're never too old to be a Meta Groupie

    by Limelite on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 07:13:21 AM PDT

    •  There is no other perp (4+ / 0-)

      In all likelihood, she did it. I bet all 12 jurors think she probably did it. But the prosecution didn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, and the right verdict was made. I just hope they don't waste any more money on this case trying to find somebody else - they already wasted enough money by putting on a show trial with shitty evidence.

      Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.

      by yg17 on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 07:35:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  She is the most logical "perp" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        milton333

        If it was murder, Casey is the most likely suspect. Most murder victims knew their killer and this isn't one of those  random felony murder type killings, like where a robber panics and kills a convenicence store clerk. It's possible that the grandfather did it. In theory, at least. But how many cases of grandparents murdering young grandchildren can you think of? On the other hand, cases of young mothers killing children are fairly common, as far as murders go. And what's the grandfather's motive? It wasn't his child, so he wasn't trying to get out of child support, or allegations that he commmitted incest. He's married and there's no evidence he was looking to live "La vita bella." Nor did he spin a web of proven lies during a critical time period, where the passage of time helped destroy evidence.  Just doesn't add up.

  •  As an attorney who has tried a lot of cases, it (12+ / 0-)

    never ceases to amaze me that other lawyers, with no knowledge of the investigation made and evidence adduced in a case, can feel competent to comment on the guilt or innocence of a party, or the competency of the lawyers who are actually trying the case.  

    Trial work is like jazz, it's not classical music.  No matter how much you have prepared, you have to be able to improvise as facts are presented, in order to meet new arguments and changes in the mood of a jury.  

    Baez may have tried a strange case, but it's obvious that he did something right.  Cases are what you can prove, not what they appear to be.  

    Good diary, 'weasie.  

    Live for friendship, live for love, For truth's and harmony's behoof; The state may follow how it can

    by SpamNunn on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 07:15:06 AM PDT

  •  asdf (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pozzo, milton333

    All this self-congratulatory prose is beginning to nauseate me.

    And is there one single person here naive enough to think that if Anthony were black, or Hispanic, or even Asian - that they would not be fitting her for an orange jumpsuit as we speak?

    The Democratic Party. Never has so much been squandered so quickly for so little.

    by GayIthacan on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 07:20:00 AM PDT

  •  The juror I heard on the radio this morning (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CanyonWren, Derfel, vets74, Darmok, milton333

    was saying that a case wasn't made for a cause for her to have killed the child.  That sounds like someone who watches too many police dramas and thinks that everything can be tied up neatly and wrapped with a bow.

    Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.--MLK, Jr.

    by conlakappa on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 07:36:45 AM PDT

    •  The lack of the motive didn't bother me (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CanyonWren

      so much, because I think there is motive. Casey wanted to go back to the carefree lifestyle she had before she had a kid. There's definitely a motive IMO, but I agree, real life isn't like Law and Order.

      But when the prosecution can't prove how she died? Yeah, that's a pretty major part of a murder trial. That's what bothered me the most. The prosecution is accusing her of murdering the kid, but the prosecution can't even prove that she was murdered.

      Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.

      by yg17 on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 07:40:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Casey Anthony got away with it because she is : (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pozzo, milton333

    pretty, young, attractive and maybe white.

    Not sure if the jury would have been than empathic if she didn't look as she looks

    Republicans secret dream = the impeachment of Bo the Dog LOL

    by LaurenMonica on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 07:44:57 AM PDT

    •  so tired of this assumption (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      esquimaux, rubyclaire, Prognosticator

      Karla Faye Tucker was a young, attractive, white woman accused of murder and was...executed by lethal injection for murdering two people.

      OJ was NOT young, NOT white, and NOT a woman and all the world is in pretty much agreement he murdered two people. Yet he walked free.

      Is there a major problem with racism and our justice system? Yes.  But every time a white person gets acquitted it's not racism.

      She had 6 lawyers and the prosecution in the case was horribad.  Money has just as strong an influence in our justice system as race does.  But with Anthony it's never about the strong defense team or the weak prosecution.  It's the 'pretty white woman' argument.

      "All this marching up and down and cheering and waving flags is simply sex gone sour." -Julia, 1984

      by pullbackthecurtain on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 08:12:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It was the breast murder case on teevee in a while (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LaurenMonica
      "The only thing you're gonna see now are her boobs sticking out today."
      CNN anchor Vinnie Politan.

      Man is a Reasoning Animal. Such is the claim. I think it is open to dispute. - Mark Twain

      by the fan man on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 09:30:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not "maybe white" Definitely white. If she were.. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LaurenMonica

      black, she'd be in prison.

      “Tax and Spend” I can understand. I can even understand “Borrow and Spend”. But “Borrow and Give Tax Cuts to Billionaires”? That I have a problem with.

      by LiberalCanuck on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 10:03:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Agreed, reluctantly. This is what disturbs me (5+ / 0-)

    and as a caveat, I am a lawyer, I didn't watch a single second of the trial, but have read about it, and looked at the timeline:  it appears that Casey's legal tem capitalized on the "Casey as incest victim" to elicit an emotional response from the jury about her behavior when she never reported her child missing; it was the grandmother that actually reported her missing. Is the incest claim true?  We'll never know, but I doubt it.  Just a gut feeling, as Casey is a cunning liar and she very well could have lied about that.  Is using an outright lie to manipulate the jury on at least one occasion really "justice"?  No. If the defendant is found to have lied on multiple occasions to police enforcement with regard to her missing child, and if the evidence of murder is circumstantial, this poses the ultimate quandary to the prosecution, doesn't it?  

    Sarah Palin: All pistol and no squint.

    by CanyonWren on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 07:49:07 AM PDT

    •  Still, what does that have to do with drowning ? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Boris Godunov, milton333

      Who left the gate open at the swimming pool ?

      How could any juror go with a prosecution that was so in love with its own theory of a chloroform killing ??? That fell apart when the grandfather said on the stand that he was the one who had googled making chloroform.

      Drowning in pools is very common in Florida.

      A nimble prosecutor would have withdrawn the Murder charge immediately, after the grandfather's testimony, just staying with Manslaughter and not asserting a cause of death.

      After all, it would have been simpler in any case to let the child drown. No need to involve chloroform. Manslaughter would have been a much easier proposition to sell to the jury -- as a standalone charge with no reference to the chloroform claims.

      Stubborn prosecution -> not guilty.

      Angry White Males + Crooks + Personality Disorder psychos + KKKwannabes + "Unborn Child" church folk =EQ= The Republicans

      by vets74 on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 08:19:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You missed my point entirely. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pozzo

        What I'm saying is that the defense used a questionable tactic in opening statements--and never mentioned it again--to establish an emotional connection with the jury to 'explain' her 'dysfunctional' behavior when she never reported her daughter missing.  They accused Casey's father and brother of incest, which is a felony, without proof, and which is privileged.  It's a loophole in the justice system, imho, that the defense capitalized on in order to omit the most damning fact from the juror's minds.

         

        Sarah Palin: All pistol and no squint.

        by CanyonWren on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 09:29:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The facts the jury did hear were more important. (0+ / 0-)

          Opening statements are largely forgotten, unless backed up later on and repeated severally.

          Angry White Males + Crooks + Personality Disorder psychos + KKKwannabes + "Unborn Child" church folk =EQ= The Republicans

          by vets74 on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 09:54:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm sure that is an opening statement the jury (0+ / 0-)

            did not forget. And, yes, there are other facts.  My comment is centered around the appeal to emotion, which defense attorney's do all the time, but here they probably lied, or at least perpetuated a lie that Casey told about her father and brother.  In my humble opinion, the facts presented were damning circumstantial evidence that the jury overlooked because they were convinced that 1) Casey was sexually abused, thus, did not act in a way 'normal' people do when her daughter disappeared, 2) because there was no "physical" proof that Casey was murdered, much less how she died, they could not have a beyond a reasonable doubt conviction. What law says you have to have physical evidence of murder in a murder trial?  There is no law.  Circumstantial evidence has convicted many murderers. Brilliant, but sleazy, strategy on the part of the defense.

            Sarah Palin: All pistol and no squint.

            by CanyonWren on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 10:12:57 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The prosecution claim about "chloroform" (0+ / 0-)

              is what collapsed.

              In fact, the defense did nothing to bring that change about except to ask about the google [ making chloroform ] query from the family's computer.

              You're over thinking things.

              The prosecutor pinned his case on a chloroform killing.

              Dumb......

              Angry White Males + Crooks + Personality Disorder psychos + KKKwannabes + "Unborn Child" church folk =EQ= The Republicans

              by vets74 on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 10:30:40 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Real juries screw up on occasion. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pozzo, Darmok, Anak, milton333

    Even if they follow procedure.  This one did, IMHO.

    She didn't report the child missing for 31 days?  Please.

    Now with extra blue!

    by TheOrchid on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 07:56:34 AM PDT

  •  The outrage says less about the jury, (8+ / 0-)

    and more about the thought processes of the outraged. We're looking at authoritarian followers here. They have been fed a line of bullshit by the prosecution and some of the media. And, true to form for authoritarian followers, they disregard anything that contradicts the established narrative by the "leaders."

    Would you expect anything less from a state that elected a criminal for a governor and enough of his friends to enable them to start pillaging the states resources?

    •  Bingo ! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      esquimaux

      This might be called a "Nancy Grace Syndrome."

      Always superficial in judgments. Always stupid for weighing facts. Always blind in following a "leader."

      Mentally lazy in the extreme.

      Angry White Males + Crooks + Personality Disorder psychos + KKKwannabes + "Unborn Child" church folk =EQ= The Republicans

      by vets74 on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 08:09:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I've always thought... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Darmok, Prognosticator

    ... the most important part of "reasonable doubt" was the "reasonable" half.

  •  The hysteria in these cases is an attack on ...... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    esquimaux, eataTREE

    innocent until proven guilty.  The hysterics would like the government to be their weapon against underiseables.

  •  Casey Anthony's big mistake was not being blonde. (0+ / 0-)
  •  Juries are imperfect as I well know... (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wader, mungley, eataTREE, cpresley, Ice Blue

    but they are infinitely better than trial by mass media hyperbloviation.  I mourn for journalism.

  •  how many people will.... (0+ / 0-)

    watch the TV shows, buy the magazines, read the books, and purchase products used to make this woman rich following her release?

    And how many of those people are right now spitting nails over this verdict and fantasizing about mob justice?

    Personally I will be quite vocal in opposing anything that leads to Anthony getting paid to speak, write, or just plain show up for anything.  I will also boycott any product advertised during any appearances of her on television.  All this, and I support the jury in their verdict.

    Anyone who opposes her freedom who helps her get paid is a filthy hypocrite!

    "All this marching up and down and cheering and waving flags is simply sex gone sour." -Julia, 1984

    by pullbackthecurtain on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 08:18:10 AM PDT

  •  "Sanctity of life" is only what they say it is. (0+ / 0-)

    I'm noting similar hypocrisy between the rank-and-file commentariat in this case, and those who typically profess to a "pro-life" ideology.

    Murder isn't okay when someone else allegedly does it, but they're awfully quick to make their own threats of violence against innocent people, who are guilty only of observing the rule of law in a way that doesn't mesh with the reality that the mob has crafted for itself.

    Regards,
    Corporate Dog

    -----
    We didn't elect Obama to be an expedient president. We elected him to be a great one. -- Eugene Robinson

    by Corporate Dog on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 08:37:45 AM PDT

  •  Revolving around a sad situation, (0+ / 0-)

    the mother's lies and the timing related to her daughter's disappearance were highly suspicious.  It looked to be a sad, horrible reveal from the start.

    But, I immediately turned off the media that was on this case because it just appeared to be another O.J. Simpson media narrative beginning.

    And, indeed, your diary shows that things led in the direction of news outlets showing their "need more advertising money", attention-grabbing stripes.

    This case was possibly proved more about the news outfits than the defendant.

    Brave, sober diary.

    "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

    by wader on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 08:41:39 AM PDT

    •  Thank you (0+ / 0-)

      I posted this late and fell asleep . . . and had no time to look at this until tonight . . . I feel lower than a rat's toenail for not responding to all the excellent, thoughtful comments.  Thank you, dear wader.

      PROUD to be a Democrat.

      by noweasels on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 09:49:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  No slam dunks, and no trial by media (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eataTREE

    Great diary. Thank you.

    I was fortunate enough to have heard nothing about this trial until Tuesday.

    1.) It seems to me that prosecutors get convinced that they have a slam dunk case, and drop the ball when it comes to providing evidence. They fail to connect all of the dots so that he jury can arrive at the conclusion they want.
    So, they end up with, "Yeah, but she totally probably did it."  A jury can't convict on a hunch.
     With that said, there have been thousands of juries in the country who did not follow the law, but went with their feelings on the case.  

    2.)The media can show all kinds of 'evidence' that the jury never sees. The jury can only use the evidence entered into in the trial. They don't get to read people magazine for extra information.

    Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. - Poor Richard's Almanac 1755
    The government exists to protect us from the thugs who got rich ripping off our ancestors. - Mungley 2011

    by mungley on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 08:47:41 AM PDT

  •  Think about this: Who in the case is interested in (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eataTREE

    Justice?

       I mean plain old justice: People getting what they deserve.

    Not the Prosecution. They want a 'win', and as alluded to, the DA was thinking about making a political career on this, as DAs often do

    Not the Judge. He just wants to get through this and not have a bunch of appeals issues and move on to the next one

    Not the Defense. The client is (as is often the case) a very unsavory individual who is certainly possbly guilty, at least of negligent homicide, likely telling much less than she knows and like the prosecution, they want a 'win' they can capitalize on

    Not the Police. As they see it, they haul in murderers and criminals and just watch them walk out later. Besides, being human, they have their biases and pet theories that they find hard to give up.

    Certainly not the media. Enough said....

    Not the public. They are baying for blood.

    So, the ONLY people in this situation who really  have an interest in justice are the jurers. Usually they are picked for their pliancy; people who are used to Fox 'News' or talk rado telling them what opinions to have. But clearly not in this case. So I must agree with the diarist that this jury was to be commended (and btw I am a parent of an angelic little girl myself).

    Sure has turned my head around about jury duty

    An empty head is not really empty; it is stuffed with rubbish. Hence the difficulty of forcing anything into an empty head. -- Eric Hoffer

    by MichiganChet on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 08:56:05 AM PDT

  •  While I still think she's probably guilty (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    feeny, eataTREE

    of the crime, I agree that the jury could not convict her on the evidence presented by the prosecution.  I would have reluctantly delivered the same verdict were I on that jury.

    Our system worked in that the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt was not met, so a conviction could not be delivered.  

  •  Juries aren't beyond criticism (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pozzo, Anak

    The fact is that juries do screw up at times.  I don't think we should insulate them from criticism by virtue of labeling criticism as "blame."  

    I get your point, but ultimately, I think people have a right to criticize a jury.  Whether the criticism is warranted in this case, I don't know.  But, so much of this trial was televised that it's hard to fall back on the standard statement that "none of us can put ourselves in the jury's place."

    •  Correct (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Darmok, Anak

      Many's the death row inmate we weep all over on this blog in other discussions. Troy Davis was convicted by a jury. Yet I would wager most of us on here, myself included, either have serious doubts about his guilt or think he's outright innocent. There's no "Jury got it right" there.  Cameron Todd Willingham was convicted by a jury, too. Most of us think he was innocent. And how many rec's would a diary saying not to criticize a jury that  acquitted a cop of civil rights violations get on here? Juries aren't perfect. Do jurors, absent misconduct deserve vitriol? No, of course not. But all criticism is neither vitriolic or illegitimate.

  •  The Jury was Right. There was not enough evidence. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eataTREE

    This is not just my opinion, it is the opinion of every objective piece by legal experts I have read.

    The prosecution simply failed utterly and completely to present any substantial, hard, clear, and irrefutable evidence that murder had been committed.

    This was not justice failing. This was the system succeeding, and insuring that someone was not convicted unfairly, out of hysteria or prejudice or revenge.

    This was way beyond any semblance of a reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed totally to present a case that was ever at best more than mere circumstantial evidence and rumor and innuendo.

    The true villains here are Nancy Grace of CNN's tabloid frenzy driven Headline News, and her cutthroat crew of tabloid monsters and viewers. This woman has no conscience or soul. She sold it years ago in a deal with the Devil for infamy and wealth. She represents the absolute epitome of how low much of the main stream media has fallen.

    She, and the others like her, make the Roman days of panem and circenses (bread and circuses) to entertain and distract the plebs ( the common people) look like high class and high moral standards entertainment.

    Those screaming for the blood of the acquitted defendant Casey Anthony are the real threats to our society.

    Nancy Grace already has the blood of one person on her hands, in the Suicide of Melissa Duckett.

    Apparently that is not enough, and she would like to add the blood of Casey Anthony to her crimes.

    I have to applaud the jurors for being willing to actually act in accordance with the evidence. Or in this case, the lack of evidence. They returned the correct verdict, and their consciences should be clean.

    "You've got to be very careful if you don't know where you are going, because you might not get there." “When you come to the fork in the road, take it.” --Yogi Berra

    by HeartlandLiberal on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 09:35:59 AM PDT

  •   The diarist's argument would be feasible, (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pozzo, Anak, Darmok, LaurenMonica

    had Anthony's lawyer not introduced "her explanation" of the crime, that the child died as a result of a drowning accident and then she and her father dumped the body.  The jury is essentially saying that unless they knew how the child died, they had no choice but to vote "not guilty".  That's not the standard of reasonable doubt.  Everyone here can name numerous cases where people who were actually innocent have been convicted, as well as numerous cases where convictions have been won despite the absence of a corpse.  

    However, if you take the defense at it's own words, then what explains her not reporting the child as missing?  If her mother (whom Anthony claims was not a part of the scheme) had not reported the crime, no one would have been the wiser.  Does anyone believe that her father (again, assuming the defense is telling the truth), could have convinced his wife (the child's grandmother) not to report the child as missing?  That would have never happened.  It's just not logical, but that's what you have to believe if you buy her version of the truth.  Keep in mind, the Dad was a former police officer.  Wouldn't he have told his daughter that you have to report the child as missing to cover yourself when they find her dead?  The only way that story makes any since is if Anthony dumped the body by herself.

    "Because I am a river to my people."

    by lordcopper on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 09:58:16 AM PDT

    •  That the defense theory of the crime (0+ / 0-)

      is suspicious, or illogical, or patently false, is not relevant here. The defense is not required to explain -- adequately, or at all -- what happened. The State is required to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense can assert that she is not guilty because the Moon is made of green cheese, and if the prosecution doesn't meet its burden of proof, she walks.

      I support torturous regimes! Also, I kick puppies.

      by eataTREE on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 10:45:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, but ... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        eataTREE, Pozzo, lordcopper

        Once the defense put for its version of the facts, the jury is entitled to consider that version in determining whether there is reasonable doubt in the evidence submitted by the prosecution.  In a circumstantial evidence case, the defense essentially offered its version of events that fill in the blanks and if the jury finds those facts lack credibility, they could determine that there is no reasonable doubt about the prosecution's case.

  •  I've tried some pretty tough cases (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skod, eataTREE

    and got acquittals. And have had this same sort of response from the ill-informed populace.

    Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, for some odd reason, is something a lot of people don't understand.

    The task of the prosecution is to PROVE each element of their case against the defendant. Not with inuendo, not with character assassination, not with junk science.

    Some prosecutors (cf Nancy Grace, former GA prosecutor who got in more than a little trouble for her over-reaching) don't get it.

    Over-charging was perhaps the DA's stupidist mistake in this case, and going for the death penalty.

    And they still never proved beyond a reaonsable doubt that Casey Anthony had anything to do with the child's death.

    An accidental death and a panicked cover-up, maybe.

    But the DA never presented a credible case to PROVE Casey premeditately killed her child.  They just plain didn't have the evidence to do so, either forensic or by statements of any person. No confession, no admission, no real science.

    No matter how angry anyone is over the death of this child, there are rules and statutes governing the trial of a criminal case.

    These people howling want a lynching, and it cannot be tolerated.

    I must be dreaming...

    by murphy on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 10:03:39 AM PDT

  •  Casey who? (0+ / 0-)

    You can't simultaneously fire teachers and cruise missiles!-Jon Stewart

    by djtyg on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 10:27:55 AM PDT

  •  It's always better at Daily Kos when Noweasels (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eataTREE

    is here to provide her expertise.

    So good to read you, ma'am.

    Bring them all home safe and sound and sooner than expected.. Now would be a good time.

    by llbear on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 10:36:31 AM PDT

  •  Good call (0+ / 0-)

    I haven't followed this case at all, since I have an aversion to high profile trials. Generally, jurors take their jobs very seriously. The plain and simple fact is that people all have varying ideas of what "reasonable doubt" is. A good judge can give them a clearer picture with jury instructions, but it's still a fairly subjective concept. I have no idea if Casey Anthony killed her child, but the jury, I think, did the best job they could do to find of if she did and they found reasonable doubt.

  •  Thank you for this diary. I still have (0+ / 0-)

    something resembling PTSD from my last jury service, on a case involving internet sexual exploitation of a child. It wasn't murder, to be sure, but the experience was absolutely brutal just the same. Our actions as jurors were very heavily constrained by the instructions we were given by the judge, and we knew full well that we could only render a verdict based upon the evidence as presented.

    Anyone who is blaming the jurors for this verdict has absolutely no concept of how the trial process works. And, in my not at all humble opinion, they ought to try serving on a jury in a high-profile case, and see what they think then. Anyone who was not sitting in that box has no standing whatsoever to complain about the decision they reached.

  •  No one ever mentions the Judge's (0+ / 0-)

    instructions.  All people hear about on teevee is some (not all ) of the evidence.  Sitting in our living rooms or hearing what some teevee lawyer spouts can not compare to being a jury sitting day in and day out seeing and listening to the actual evidence.  Then when both sides have presented their case the Judge gives the jury specific instructions and how to apply the law.  Judges do not make these instrutions as clear as guilty or not guilty.  I think most  of the people who complain about jury decisions are those  that do their best to get out of doing jury duty and therefore complain the loudest when these high profile cases don't go THEIR way.  I applaud the defense attorneys for heeping shame on the Nancy Graces of the teevee punditry.  Just  like the MSM its all about the ratings...not the victims or justice.

  •  Bravo for jury! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skod, terrypinder

    GMA this morning had Juror #4 on who said exactly what this diary and other comments in this thread have said: the evidence wasn't there, the case was not made.

    She also had the best line of anyone on national television regarding the entire circus when they asked her response to Nancy Grace's comment that the jury was "kooky".

    She said, "there's no comment I can make about Nancy Grace that would be appropriate for morning television".  

    Bravo juror # 4, I say.

    Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

    by a gilas girl on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 11:25:43 AM PDT

  •  Thank you...this needs to be said (0+ / 0-)

    I wonder how many of those people criticizing the jury have even been on a jury themselves and have had to make that decision before.

    I have...for an attempted murder case...and can tell you that we don't take that responsibility lightly. Whether we like the defendant or not is not as important as whether the state can prove their case.

    It's very hard to prove that this was a murder when the state can't prove how the child died. Everything else is circumstantial, and is a very high bar to hurdle in order to convince a jury.

    The bottom line is that the system worked the way it was supposed to.

    "...a people made morbidly obese in mind and spirit by the junk food of propaganda is less inclined to put up a fight, ask questions and be skeptical" - Bill Moyers

    by legendmn on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 11:51:05 AM PDT

  •  Here's what bothers me (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LaurenMonica, Darmok, Pozzo

    about the MANY comments here that say it's not enough to convict a woman because she's portrayed as a party girl or a slut or whatever.

    Casey Anthony was not suspect because she partied in scanty clothing, she was suspect because she did so for 31 days after her child went missing.

    In addition to "reasonable doubt" the other word that should be huge here is the word CREDIBILITY.  I don't understand why Casey deserved any credibility.  She not only partied like crazy, knowing her child was missing, she lied her ass off about where the child was, over and over again.  And that we can all agree with the jury, she IS guilty of.

    Of course we don't know if her father abused her or not,
    or even if that's an excuse for murdering her child, and how it's an excuse, but why did the jury give the defense SO MUCH credibility on Casey's claim she'd been molested when she'd already shown herself to be a pathological liar, not to mention the defense did not pursue this any longer than necessary to lodge the idea in the jury's mind because they had no evidence it was true.

    Same is true about the "she drown" noodle thrown at the wall by the defense, and never followed up on with any evidence.  So it's easier to believe that when Casey or her father found Caylee at the bottom of the pool, as do thousands of unfortunate parents, he/she or they decided the best thing to do would be to bag her up and throw her in a swamp, than to believe the "drowning" meme was not supported in any way by the evidence?

    Look, the jury did their thing, and I'm sure they're all good people who put their best foot forward.  But I think they got it wrong. I think they confused reasonable doubt with no doubt, and I think they ignored HUGE doubts they should have had about Casey.  They had several verdict options to assuage their doubts, including at the least, negligent child abuse.

    I know this will not be popular here, but I just don't buy that one can't disagree with a jury's verdict and still have respect for the difficulty of the job, or must be a "jury basher."

    I don't agree with their verdict, and I don't think that makes me an asshole.

    •  Yep (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      StellaRay

      I don't get this "worship the jury" thing goign on here. They are regular people. Are the good people? Who knows? The probably are and they probably did their best. They should not be savaged, but it is perfectly fine to disagree with their verdict.

    •  Then don't agree (0+ / 0-)

      That doesn't necessarily make you an 'A-hole'. Here at Kos we have thoughtful people who write their opinions, hopefully without need for personal invective or insults. We are not Drudge Report.
         I mean, I have opinions to that are not necessarily in accord with the majority here (free trade, e.g.), but I think I can at least express them and politely disagree with the respondants.
         I do think, though, that the counter that you were not on the jury, so your opinion is just that has some relevance here. But then I would say the same thing about mine

      An empty head is not really empty; it is stuffed with rubbish. Hence the difficulty of forcing anything into an empty head. -- Eric Hoffer

      by MichiganChet on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 10:46:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

a gilas girl, neil, buffalo soldier, kelly, Alfred E Newman, PLS, Lawdog, Brainwrap, murphy, copymark, Sparhawk, Dump Terry McAuliffe, artr2, PeterHug, alicia, genethefiend, eeff, Mnemosyne, Matilda, grover, bronte17, mbayrob, annrose, nyceve, Pithy Cherub, high uintas, davis90, wader, Texknight, tidalwave1, Getreal1246, diane101, Viola Lee, texasmom, BMarshall, tabbycat in tenn, Kitsap River, mungley, lyvwyr101, vacantlook, sebastianguy99, wolverinethad, Jersey Joe, vcmvo2, kbman, Skaje, greatferm, wsexson, Seldom Seen, Lying eyes, HudsonValleyMark, PBen, SoCalLiberal, terrypinder, Brooke In Seattle, boofdah, Pam from Calif, Ice Blue, techno, wiscmass, Floja Roja, FindingMyVoice, DaveVH, Ekaterin, noladq, lcork, dannyinla, Debbie in ME, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, edwardssl, Prognosticator, kestrel9000, jenthor, Albatross, fiddler crabby, DarkestHour, triv33, twigg, justalittlebitcrazy, timj, happy camper, CTLiberal, Preston S, ridgerunner, MBNYC, llbear, Unknown Quantity, frankzappatista, kurt, bstotts, Nulwee, cpresley, One Pissed Off Liberal, pfiore8, dotsright, tgypsy, Positronicus, vets74, psychodrew, edsbrooklyn, phaktor, HeartlandLiberal, DWG, Seneca Doane, rontripp, gchaucer2, skod, gizmo59, Corporate Dog, mconvente, kingneil, mamamedusa, Youffraita, lineatus, mikeconwell, Americans for a Republican Irrelevancy, TomFromNJ, Cassandra Waites, sam storm, SpamNunn, DavidW, Diogenes2008, legendmn, LaFeminista, maggiejean, snackdoodle, bsmechanic, CanyonWren, FrugalGranny, Daily Activist, UnaSpenser, nancat357, Livvy5, Vita Brevis, brooklyns finest, kjoftherock, gulfgal98, jojothecat, Otteray Scribe, MikeMaloney, DudleyMason, not4morewars, Onomastic, yellow cosmic seed, kerflooey, mama jo, myadestes, FarWestGirl, misskitty64, feeny, KVoimakas, Idgie Threadgoode, OneL, LSmith, peregrine kate, cap76, husl piper 11, jadt65, Dom9000, YaNevaNo, hulibow, Flying Goat, Mindful Nature, drnononono, congenitalefty, s l o w loris, jan4insight, SierraDrinker, bewareofme, MartyM, lunachickie, Buckeye Liberal, falina

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site