AcuWill 45 Report post Posted July 6, 2011 I bet her brother is happy, he's getting laid tonight. Yeah he's probably out partying while his sister waits for sentencing in jail. Joke = fail Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trey Time 186 Report post Posted July 6, 2011 Yeah he's probably out partying while his sister waits for sentencing in jail. Joke = fail Joke going over your head =/= Joke fail You weren't lying when you said you just started watching the trial. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
~O~ 565 Report post Posted July 6, 2011 All in all, it was a fair trial. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Emory889 353 Report post Posted July 6, 2011 A perfect example of why "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" should not just be lip service. All it takes is one overly zealous prosecutor trying to make a name for themself for an innocent man to be locked up for almost a decade. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peggy_Hettrick_murder_case Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheREALBrooksThompson 157 Report post Posted July 7, 2011 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43651613/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/ Jennifer Ford, or juror No. 3, said the jurors were "sick to their stomach" after coming to the decision. "I did not say she was innocent," Ford, a 32-year-old nursing student told ABC. "I just said there was not enough evidence. If you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marc Acres 3:16 418 Report post Posted July 7, 2011 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43651613/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/ Jennifer Ford, or juror No. 3, said the jurors were "sick to their stomach" after coming to the decision. "I did not say she was innocent," Ford, a 32-year-old nursing student told ABC. "I just said there was not enough evidence. If you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be." Does this mean the media can stop the love fest with Baez? I mean that kinda pokes holes in the whole he's a new shining star idea. I guess it isn't as great of a story if he's a doofus that walked into a good set of circumstances. I made the mistake of listening to the Jim Phillips show today, not sure why I do that to myself since he annoys me but he mentioned how he felt that Jeff Ashton smiling/laughing at Baez during closing arguements could have had an impact on the jury. What he didn't mention was that according to the reporters that were in the court room they were fighting to stay awake during Baez's closing. He also ignores the fact that Baez made a fart joke during his closing arguement and made one of the stupidest statements I've ever heard when he said (I'm paraphrasing) People that die of suffocation sometimes display a dark ring inside the skull by the ears, there were no dark rings inside Caylee's skull so that proves that she could not have died of suffocation. I had to rewind the dvr to make sure I had that correct. Something that happens sometimes did not occur so it proves that it could not have happened...yep this guy is a rising star. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AcuWill 45 Report post Posted July 7, 2011 A perfect example of why "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" should not just be lip service. All it takes is one overly zealous prosecutor trying to make a name for themself for an innocent man to be locked up for almost a decade. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peggy_Hettrick_murder_case This. I highly recommend the following book Mistakes were made (but not by me). It really goes into detail regarding dissonance theory and has a chapter regarding detectives and prosecutors. I think one of the biggest misunderstanding with regard to prosecution and defense, is that prosecutors are trying to put the "guilty" people in prison, and defenders are trying to get "guilty" people out of prison. I do think that prosecutors/detectives and the like are trying to do the right thing, but too often our unacknowledged human failings get in the way and they end up justifying their unsupported suspicions or "knowing" by proving it in a court of law. This book is an excellent book for the lay person regarding dissonance theory and how it pervades everyday life. It also explains the bloodlust, media portrayals, reactions and subsequent 180 with regard to coverage, without missing a step. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Berto 338 Report post Posted July 7, 2011 http://www.msnbc.msn...ime_and_courts/ Jennifer Ford, or juror No. 3, said the jurors were "sick to their stomach" after coming to the decision. "I did not say she was innocent," Ford, a 32-year-old nursing student told ABC. "I just said there was not enough evidence. If you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be." Wouldn't it be great if everyone was this sensible? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheREALBrooksThompson 157 Report post Posted July 7, 2011 Wouldn't it be great if everyone was this sensible? Yes, it would. Unfortunately, we're not even close to that point, as evidenced by this douchebag: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VtMEzbPgVA Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Secretly Space Jesus 670 Report post Posted July 7, 2011 Yes, it would. Unfortunately, we're not even close to that point, as evidenced by this douchebag: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VtMEzbPgVA In response to that video, that man is no longer welcome at any of my barbeques. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jareth Cutestory 678 Report post Posted July 7, 2011 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheREALBrooksThompson 157 Report post Posted July 7, 2011 What's really troubling about it is that the majority of people probably agree with that guy. Outside of this thread, most of what I've heard people talking about is disbelief at how the jury could have come to that decision. When did we stray so far from what this country is supposed to represent that the complete opposite is now considered not only the right way to do things, but patriotic as well? The concept of being innocent until proven guilty by a jury of your peers is not some kind of stumbling block standing in the way of real justice. That's a central tenet of what makes the United States a free country. What is wrong with these people? 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
