Ah, someone else who sees Machiavelli's fould hand in this!
Was Burke involved?
- Thread starter GuruJosh
- Start date
- Status
Ah, someone else who sees Machiavelli's fould hand in this!
SuperDave,
Oh yes , metaphorically, he is alive and well. I think it was US Senator Gary Hart who alerted me to his modern relevance, when he described him in modern terms and the practise of his alleged philosophy as amoral realism?
He should know since its been suggested that the splash of his affair with Donna Rice, was deliberate and intended to eliminate him as a presidential candidate?
What might be interesting would be the names of all PIs that were ever contracted by the Ramsey's or their legal representatives. Their specializations might tell a story or two?
.
Judges may sentence, but juries are the first step. That Florida jury may not have acquitted Casey Anthony if they didn't feel that a death sentence was something she may have actually been given.
I am claiming that no jury assembled from boulder residents would have convicted her of murder one. Manslaughter, possibly. And it wouldn't have come to trail anyway. AH prosecuted only one case in his career, I believe- and lost. He never tried another. He plea-bargained every one.
Party affiliation is a pretty good indication of how liberal one is, sure. People who select juries for the defense DO seek out more liberal jurors when they have a case like this- it is the defense team who has the final say. That jury was handpicked by the defense to fit a particular profile they wanted/needed. Ditto for OJ. Worked like a charm in both cases.
Is there a basis for this opinion? I assume that during voir dire, the jurors were asked if they had objections to the DP.
That's quite a claim. Is that based on the overall weakness of the case or your perception of liberalism in Boulder.
I agree, Hunter would have been unlikely to bring it to trial.
I don't agree.
Well, I'll ask again, do we know whether the jurors were liberal or conservative? Or is this just an assumption you've made because you don't like the verdict?
Well, I don't like the verdict, that's for sure. But as I said, juries are selected by the defense based on how they are likely to view certain things. They need not have been liberals, but they would have had to display a tendency to be more sympathetic to their client or their clients' actions.
I'm pretty conservative, but I've been rejected from juries because I own guns, even if the case had nothing to do with firearms.
So let's just say that I "assume" the jury was more liberal. And let it go at that.
Chrishope,
I reckon DeeDee249 is entirely correct here. Jury profiling is big business, the use of PIs to garner information on potential jurors occurs on a daily basis. Its not guaranteed to work but can tilt the jury bias in your favor depending on the case type. With the death penalty involved, a good strategy might be: find as many liberal types as possible, introduce reasonable doubt into your defense, say a prayer or two, and as DeeDee249 points out it worked a charm in other notorious cases.
.
I'm not claiming that the jury wasn't carefully selected. I wouldn't be at all surprised if jury selection experts were hired to help with the process.
I'm just wondering if there is, A) Evidence that "liberals" (whatever that is supposed to mean) were selected, and B) is there any proof liberals are more likely to acquit?
I'm pro-choice. Does that automatically make me a liberal? (I know lots of self-described Conservatives who are pro-choice) I'm against gun control, and go to "gun parties", where we shoot different types of firearms. Does that make me a Conservative? I'm a veteran, does that track with being a conservative? I'm an atheist, does that track with being liberal? I don't know. Truth is I don't know myself whether I'm a liberal or a conservative, and I don't think the terms actually mean anything anymore as they have been so misused and misapplied.
But even if one could determine that a potential juror was a liberal is there any evidence they'd be more likely to acquit?
I don't doubt jurors were picked in hopes that they'd be sympathetic. I just doubt that it automatically means they were "liberal" (whatever the heck that might actually mean, if anything).
Chrishope,
I guess it depends if you are using the terms liberal or conservative in a political sense or to describe a personality type?
There is anecdotal evidence, but juries do not lend themselves to opinion polling. Its the actual case type that determines the jury selection.
Consider a home invasion where a guest uses a gun to kill an intruder, but is in court on some obscure manslaughter charge relating to firearms? Here stuffing as many conservative types onto the jury, and repeatedly citing a right to bear arms and self defense etc, should elicit the required result.
Its not a proof issue its a persuasion issue, in that the defense rely on a particular bias so to persuade the jury to agree with the defense argument.
I reckon the younger you are the more likely you are to be liberal and the more older the more likely you are to be conservative.
LOL. You must immediately sign up for your nearest 101 Philosophy Class. The modern world's first secular martyr, Socrates, was executed in 399 BC, by the Athenians for corrupting the youth and impiety. His catchphrase is The unexamined life is not worth living.
.
I have been excused from jury duty about 5 times. The cases ranged from homicide to robbery. Not sure why I was excused, but actually was ok with that happening.
The defense is who excused me in all 5 trials. Maybe it was the way I responded when asked about crimes against my own family member. (I am for stricter sentencing and full disclosure on the actual amount of time that a person will be incarcerated.)
I thought some of the questions they asked were quite personal and even somewhat offensive. Especially the rape case I was released from. I also think the fact that I am an RN makes a huge difference, as from what I have seen in trials, they tend to try and confuse issues, when it comes to injuries etc.
I do agree that the case would never be brought to trial in Boulder. Look at all of the other cases we have discussed that were dropped, or the DA office plead. I am surprised Hunter never was voted out of office. Guess he had a good PR person.
Just my $.02.
The defense is who excused me in all 5 trials. Maybe it was the way I responded when asked about crimes against my own family member. (I am for stricter sentencing and full disclosure on the actual amount of time that a person will be incarcerated.)
I thought some of the questions they asked were quite personal and even somewhat offensive. Especially the rape case I was released from. I also think the fact that I am an RN makes a huge difference, as from what I have seen in trials, they tend to try and confuse issues, when it comes to injuries etc.
I do agree that the case would never be brought to trial in Boulder. Look at all of the other cases we have discussed that were dropped, or the DA office plead. I am surprised Hunter never was voted out of office. Guess he had a good PR person.
Just my $.02.
As far as Hunter goes, I can't say for sure, because I have never lived in Boulder. But I suspect as long as the overall crime rate was low, no one really cared how many cases he plea bargained.
And just to be clear, plea bargaining is absolutely necessary for our judicial system. There simply aren't enough judges to try each and every case in a timely manner. If every case went to trial, defendants would sit languishing in jail for decades before getting their day in court.
eileenhawkeye
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2010
- Messages
- 8,755
- Reaction score
- 131
RN = ransom note
Registered nurse. (With respect to her name.)
BBM
You were excused because it was probably determined from voir dire that you have common sense, defense lawyers dont like that.
She was probably excused because there had been crimes committed against her own family. The defense was concerned about bias.
Not that she actually is biased, just that it's a risk for the defense. Since there were enough jurors who had not been crime victims, she was excused.
Not that she actually is biased, just that it's a risk for the defense. Since there were enough jurors who had not been crime victims, she was excused.
jeeps
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2011
- Messages
- 25
- Reaction score
- 0
Just to clear up the jury selection process in the US:
<from Wiki
United States of America
All jurisdictions in the United States have some form of peremptory challenges. In the United States, the use of peremptory challenges by criminal prosecutors to remove persons from a cognizable group (i.e., of one race, ethnicity, or gender) based on that group characteristic has been ruled to be unconstitutional in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). "Batson challenge" is a term now used to refer to the act of arguing for the invalidity of a trial on the basis that peremptory challenges during jury selection resulted in the exclusion of a cognizable group.
Batson's authority has also recently been reinforced in a pair of 2005 decisions, Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (2005), and Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162 (2005). Furthermore, in 2009 the United States Supreme Court found in a unanimous opinion in Rivera v. Illinois that "there is no freestanding constitutional right to peremptory challenges," even when a court was mistaken in applying Batson.
Strike for cause (or removal for cause) is a method of eliminating potential members from a jury panel in the United States. Attorneys on either side of a case have infinite potential to strike potential jurors for causal reasons; thus, the strike for cause is an appealing method for honing down a panel suited to an attorney's individual interests.
The method is practiced by many attorneys, as well as jury consultants.
During the jury selection process, after voir dire, opposing attorneys may request removal of any juror who does not appear capable of rendering a fair and impartial verdict.>
________________________________________
On another note, when I first got into this case ~two years ago, I was positively IDI. After reading transcripts, depositions, reports, etc., I am MOST DEFINITELY RDI. I can't help but to think that Burke was somehow involved in this. Him being awake when the parents said he was sleeping (that whole giving him the information about the 911 tape proving he was awake, otherwise he wouldn't have had a right to it [correct me here if I'm wrong]); the way the parents shuffled him quickly out of the house over to FW's house; the fact that the Ramsey's claimed not to have talked to him about his sister's death; his answers during his interview with the psychologist. All of those things are very very fishy to me....I'm sure there are other circumstantial reasons within this thread, it's just quite long to go through and start quoting.
If my younger brother were murdered, I would be doing everything in my power--to this day--to bring the killer to justice. Unless of course I was privy to the fact that one of my parents did it, well, then I'd just be one screwed up person.
Just my two pennies. ;-)
<from Wiki
United States of America
All jurisdictions in the United States have some form of peremptory challenges. In the United States, the use of peremptory challenges by criminal prosecutors to remove persons from a cognizable group (i.e., of one race, ethnicity, or gender) based on that group characteristic has been ruled to be unconstitutional in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). "Batson challenge" is a term now used to refer to the act of arguing for the invalidity of a trial on the basis that peremptory challenges during jury selection resulted in the exclusion of a cognizable group.
Batson's authority has also recently been reinforced in a pair of 2005 decisions, Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (2005), and Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162 (2005). Furthermore, in 2009 the United States Supreme Court found in a unanimous opinion in Rivera v. Illinois that "there is no freestanding constitutional right to peremptory challenges," even when a court was mistaken in applying Batson.
Strike for cause (or removal for cause) is a method of eliminating potential members from a jury panel in the United States. Attorneys on either side of a case have infinite potential to strike potential jurors for causal reasons; thus, the strike for cause is an appealing method for honing down a panel suited to an attorney's individual interests.
The method is practiced by many attorneys, as well as jury consultants.
During the jury selection process, after voir dire, opposing attorneys may request removal of any juror who does not appear capable of rendering a fair and impartial verdict.>
________________________________________
On another note, when I first got into this case ~two years ago, I was positively IDI. After reading transcripts, depositions, reports, etc., I am MOST DEFINITELY RDI. I can't help but to think that Burke was somehow involved in this. Him being awake when the parents said he was sleeping (that whole giving him the information about the 911 tape proving he was awake, otherwise he wouldn't have had a right to it [correct me here if I'm wrong]); the way the parents shuffled him quickly out of the house over to FW's house; the fact that the Ramsey's claimed not to have talked to him about his sister's death; his answers during his interview with the psychologist. All of those things are very very fishy to me....I'm sure there are other circumstantial reasons within this thread, it's just quite long to go through and start quoting.
If my younger brother were murdered, I would be doing everything in my power--to this day--to bring the killer to justice. Unless of course I was privy to the fact that one of my parents did it, well, then I'd just be one screwed up person.
Just my two pennies. ;-)
DIXIECAT
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2011
- Messages
- 168
- Reaction score
- 0
I just had a lightbulb moment. When questioned about whether he could hear anything the night JBR was killed, Burke stated that he couldn't hear talking, but he would be able to hear when the REFRIGERATOR was opened downstairs....
What if JBR had gotten up to get some PINEAPPLE on her own and Burke, hearing the fridge open, went downstairs--- and the rest just happened? MOO
I can't remember where I saw his fridge comment, but I think it was at "A Candy Rose." I'll see if I can find it.
What if JBR had gotten up to get some PINEAPPLE on her own and Burke, hearing the fridge open, went downstairs--- and the rest just happened? MOO
I can't remember where I saw his fridge comment, but I think it was at "A Candy Rose." I'll see if I can find it.
jeeps
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2011
- Messages
- 25
- Reaction score
- 0
Interesting....
"JB, you're not supposed to be up right now!"
"Shhh don't tell mommy and daddy"
fight ensues? very interesting point, Dixie
Patsy told LE that JB wouldn't have been able to reach the pineapple bowl in the fridge. JB's prints were NOT on the bowl. Only Patsy's and BR's.
The Rs had a huge walk-in fridge. The stainless-steel door can be seen in crime scene photos of the kitchen. The door looks like a standard-sized fridge door, but when opened, it was a huge walk-in fridge (similar to a walk-in closet) that was built in to the wall. There were shelves along the two sides like closet shelves, not like fridge shelves in your own fridge. These went up much higher than a regular fridge.
- Status