Grateful Dead

1296 replies [Last post]


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
jonapi (not verified)
tangled up in blue sky

I agree marye.
Gut-wrenching and abominable though the case and outcome may be, if there is not sufficient evidence, the verdict HAS to be Not Guilty. Sticks in the stomach i know, but judging by "feelings" and "intuition", even "common sense" (and i use that word quite loosely in this day and age), has no place in a courtroom. It would lead to even MORE abuses of justice, with police and prosecutors with big grudges, stitching people up even more than they probably do already.
As i've said before, when you look at some of the people called for jury service and some of the judges in the courtroom, you wouldn't trust them to organise a fuck in a brothel.
It would lead to more bribes, more manipulation, more false convictions and therefore more posts in this topic about the injustice of it all and "whatever happened to evidence with a capital E"?

Injustice does prevail sometimes. But we need to look to a higher law. These people will get what they deserve. The simple law of Karma.
That poor soul's suffering is already in the past, something that is irreversible. We need to concentrate on thinking of her warmly and with infinite compassion. The bottom rung of the ladder complete for this particular cycle and the next step already taken.

No concrete evidence, no sentence.
If people are sufficiently outraged they are always free to take matters into their own hands.

But i wouldn't recommend this.

marye's picture
Joined: May 26 2007
or perhaps

given the surfeit of apparent hysterical fiction coming from both sides, they threw up their hands, looked at the meager actual evidence, and followed the law. We weren't there, we don't know.

I do tend to adhere to the better x thousand guilty go free than one innocent be executed principle, though. We're no better than them otherwise, killers of innocents, and institutional ones at that, wrapping ourselves in the flag of justice while we do it. So in a situation like this where the actual evidence is negligible, and that, and a passel of showboating lawyers and media trolls, is what they've got to deal with, I think it's very likely those people in good conscience did the best they could to follow the law.

But hey, we weren't there.

lamagonzo (not verified)
Regardless if the jury misinterpreted it's instructions,

which I believe it did, a little girl died and no killer was found. The mother lied and lied and lied and partied till the jig was up. It was all the kind of evidence that does not prove beyond the shadow of a doubt, but leads a rational, sane person in a very firm direction. Sorry there was no DNA, but after six months it all decomposes.

If it was a pool accident would a former police officer not call the police? She was observed with her car backed half into the garage and asking a neighbor to borrow a shovel, presumably to bury the kid in the backyard.

Many, many juries have convicted with less evidence than this. Most of the time their verdict was probably correct and rendered to the best of their conscious. This one has to live with 3 pieces of duct-tape on little Caylee's face so she couldn't breathe. Somebody put a little kiss or smiley sticker on the the place where Caylee's lips were. I hope they all think of how they cast their verdict at the moment before they die.

There was almost a riot in Orlando that day. In some ways it was a strange and twisted saga with the case going to the jury on July 4th. I think it was meant to show that justice does prevail when a mother allegedly callously kills her daughter but when you sequester people in the jury for 31 days for crap pay they are are going to throw out all deliberate reasoning and run for home -- not go into another deliberation on the sentence to be given.

As it was, the judge gave her the max on lying to a police officer on 4 counts. Sitting on the bench as an African-American maybe he knows a thing or two about justice that we don't.

marye's picture
Joined: May 26 2007
if the judge really said that as jury instructions

he was handing the defense an appeal on a silver platter.

The judge might not like it, but deep abiding feelings notwithstanding, as the law is constituted the jury with the Not Proven verdict on its hands is obliged to bring in Not Guilty.

Now it may come to pass with Ms. Anthony that she experiences a huge transformation and has an exemplary or at least unremarkable life, who knows. Or it may be that she goes the way of OJ and is soon undone over some truly dumbass move. She has a certain amount of control over this and let's hope she's learned enough to use it well.

lamagonzo (not verified)
Well, Mr. Dean, you have some interesting proposals...

...that entice and frighten at the same time. A group of prison officials decided that they wanted this guy IN JAIL for a few more years rather than, as you say, in the ckoo ckoo's nest for the rest of his life. As it is, his lawyer tried to have " justice" done, He will be out at around 48 years old or so. So he serves 27 years for killing 4 people.

Casey Anthony gets 4 years for (time served) for killing her daughter. I don't argue that a jury of one's piers is best in trying criminal cases, though you have to admit, judges and lawyers can and do manipulate juries on a regular basis.

This judge was on the side of the prosecution. That was obvious. He said no less than three times "even if you have a reasonable doubt , still, IF YOU HAVE A DEEP, ABIDING FEELING THAT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY THEN YOU MUST BRING BACK A GUI;TY VERDICT!

Not one juror heard that instruction or took it to heart and they all just looked into deep space for any reasonable doubt, plausible or imagined. Not one juror had the guts to hang that jury. The Prosecutor's office in Pinellas Country, got deeply burned and won't go through the time and expense of another trial, should more evidence come to light.

It's like I said i the other post... What did we ever do before DNA evidence? Use common sense? Yes, I know DNA is kicking people off Death Row all over the place but I still don't think it applies in this case.

By the way,
Buddy Cianci was the former mayor of Providence, but he didn't have a button. The New England Family is run out of many legal enterprises in RI. I only know what I know cause I lived in that state a long time.

gratefaldean's picture
Joined: Jun 22 2007
American justice, Rhode Island style

A pause from the Koch bros for a moment, and back to the Caylee Anthony trial. And no, Gonzo, the RI part of this is not a reference to wiseguys on Federal Hill nor to Buddy Cianci.

This is how you get around pesky things like "laws" in order to obtain justice for the victims of murderers.

Craig Price was a teenage serial killer in the late '80s in Warwick, RI. Absolutely guilty, no doubt here, he confessed to his crimes and showed zero remorse for brutally killing 4 people over the course of a couple of years.

But he was a minor, and RI had no law in place to try minors as adults. So despite his admitted guilt, Price was supposed to be released from incarceration on his 21st birthday. However, through a series of infractions that he committed while in jail, including assault, extortion and the big one, criminal contempt of court for refusing psychological evaluation/treatment (on the advice of his attorney, most likely because if fully evaluated he would have ended up in a mental hospital/prison for the rest of his life), he's still in jail and currently with a 2020 release date. This was so obviously a case of gaming the system on the part of prison officials, prosecutors, and judges...but his crimes were so heinous that, frankly, nobody cared. I was appalled at how obvious this stuff was at the time. But frankly, I didn't care either.

Except, you know, on an "integrity of the system" basis.

Price is in his late 30s now. As whacked out as he is, I have to believe he'll continue to screw up in prison and continue do time for crimes other than the horrific ones that got him behind bars to start with. We can only hope.

So there's your template. Not so hard to follow, is it?

lamagonzo (not verified)
@GTed -- are you referring to this part of the 14th Amendment?

14th Amendment to the US Constitution

"Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void."

So Grahm , et. al. is saying that the national debt ceiling had to do with Obama freeing the slaves? Uhhhm, NO! (But could be as SC started the civil war and Obama wants one black vote to equal 1 vote instead of 3/5ths of a voe) Is Grahm saying that the Tea Party and all other organizations fomenting insurrection such as AQ should not be paid for by the States or the US? Is Grahm really trying to say that Obama is trying to support insurrection in our country by providing decent, affordable health care? Basing the objection to raising the debt ceiling on the 14th Amendment is an act of lunacy that could only come from SC.

Last: Who is behind this? The Kohn bothers. A billionaire PAC of 2 dedicated to the proposition that the American people can be advertized into doing anything they want. I must admit they are doing a good job with the Supremes right now -- Corporations have human rights and can spend all their money getting whomever they want elected.

Grahm, the Tea Party, he Kohns have no valid poroposals. They only wish to fine tune our population so that 3/5th of the population can be the servants for 2/th of the population. It's called "Class War" which is why I'll never again hold that Bob & Phil made a mistake in rallying for Obama.

Gr8fulTed's picture
Joined: Jul 9 2007
More Republican roadblocks

Sen. Lindsey Graham, (R)-SC, and a few of his party friends introduced Senate Resolution 226 in order to stop President Obama from invoking his authority under the 14th Amendment to raise the debt ceiling! How do these Republicans get elected, who's drivin' their train, and what valid proposals do they offer to help resolve the issue of our deficit? Simply mind-boggling.

lamagonzo (not verified)
News Of the World... donate profits from it's last copy to charity. Be still my heart... The righteous Murdoch, who brought forth to America, this ignorant land, the FOX network with it's many, many "Liar, Liar! Pants On Fire" awards from Politifact (an ind. org. who checks news claims).

As long as there was a cell phone with a battery in it, on or off, they could hack it. If your cell phone is off and you're enjoying yourself in the privacy of your own home, the News of the World might be listening in as the champagne cork pops.

Hey, wait a minute! Our government, news agencies, detectives etc., might be listening to us. Glad to say I was way ahead of the curve on this one. My battery is more out of my cell phone than in.

~ The only privacy we have left is that measured between our own two ears. ~

(from the movie Enemy of the State"

lamagonzo (not verified)
A Poll by Senator Bernie Sanders


In order to reduce the national debt, would you support or oppose raising taxes on those with incomes over $150,000 a year?

Support 1957
Oppose 449
Unsure 351

In order to reduce the national debt, would you support or oppose raising taxes on those with incomes over $250,000 a year?

Support 2545
Oppose 133
Unsure 70

In order to reduce the national debt, would you support or oppose raising taxes on those with incomes over $1,000,000 a year?

Support 2683
Oppose 62
Unsure 4


In order to reduce the national debt, would you support or oppose cutting spending on
Social Security, which is the retirement program for the elderly?

Support 95
Oppose 2614
Unsure 46

In order to reduce the national debt, would you support or oppose cutting spending on Medicare, which is the government health insurance program for the elderly?

Support 102
Oppose 2596
Unsure 57

In order to reduce the national debt, would you support or oppose cutting spending on Medicaid, which is the government health insurance program for the poor, disabled, and children?

Support 107
Oppose 2577
Unsure 66


What do you think should be a higher priority for Congress: creating jobs or reducing the deficit?

Creating jobs 2449
Reducing the deficit 216


Stop, think, what is obvious common sense here? An Independent US Senator tells the truth while the rest try to brainwash us. Don't go along with the advertizing. Think for yourself.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Trouble Ahead, Trouble Behind: Still More Current Events