RIP Common Sense

[wonderllama]

BBM

First, I admire how we can have this discussion and remain respectful. But the part I bolded has been on my mind since the Anthony verdict, and probably even before.

Our system is old, and for the most part, has remained pretty much the same since the founding of our country. But could the founding fathers have foreseen such facets as jury consultants, who game the system to try to place a panel who will lean toward their side? That is far from the initial goal of a jury of one's peers. Did the framers intend for attorneys to ruin the lives of innocent people like Roy Kronk in an attempt to "defend" their client?

I know that our justice system gets it right most of the time, but situations like this case point out exactly how we have strayed from the ideals our ancestors looked for. They wanted everyone to have a fair trial, without providing advantages to those who were well-connected, famous, wealthy, etc. I worry that justice has become secondary to which side can push the envelope farther in the effort to win at all costs.

Keep in mind, your system is old because it was in part based on the English model which is even older. Same with ours (Aus).

There are differences, but I think some of these things stand the test of time BECAUSE they are old....one OLD example being religion, one more RECENT example being the US right to bear arms.

If those aren't examples to prove your point I don't know what are!

 

[BBB167893]

I think common sense should have prevailed. You have seen Dave's take on it. Just a dumb jury.

It's a bit more than just that, pilgrim. I actually meant this thread as a companion piece to the "chickens roosting" thread. Yes, I believe the jury in this case was stupid. But what seems to have gone unnoticed here is WHY they were stupid.

I actually devote an entire chapter in the book to what I refer to as "The JonBenet Syndrome." What is "the JonBenet Syndrome," do you ask?

Simply put, it's the possibility that people thought they could get away with killing their children because the Ramseys got away with it. The Ramseys and their supporters (ALL of them) have supplied what amounts to a how-to manual for getting away with it: lie and attack everything and everyone. (Just to use a specific example: the way Roy has chosen to run down Lee and Spitz. Sorry, pilgrim. Been there, done that!)

I list some specific examples of this happening:

-the Aisenbergs of Florida;

-The McCanns;

-the Midyettes (who didn't QUITE get away with it, but it helps illustrate the different treatment wealthy killers in Boulder get);

-and now Casey Anthony.

That's where I stand on it.

 

[Roy23]

It's a bit more than just that, pilgrim. I actually meant this thread as a companion piece to the "chickens roosting" thread. Yes, I believe the jury in this case was stupid. But what seems to have gone unnoticed here is WHY they were stupid.

I actually devote an entire chapter in the book to what I refer to as "The JonBenet Syndrome." What is "the JonBenet Syndrome," do you ask?

Simply put, it's the possibility that people thought they could get away with killing their children because the Ramseys got away with it. The Ramseys and their supporters (ALL of them) have supplied what amounts to a how-to manual for getting away with it: lie and attack everything and everyone. (Just to use a specific example: the way Roy has chosen to run down Lee and Spitz. Sorry, pilgrim. Been there, done that!)

I list some specific examples of this happening:

-the Aisenbergs of Florida;

-The McCanns;

-the Midyettes (who didn't QUITE get away with it, but it helps illustrate the different treatment wealthy killers in Boulder get);

-and now Casey Anthony.

That's where I stand on it.

See, this doesn't make any sense Dave. I run down Lee and Spitz because they are prostitute for hire defense witnesses that were instrumental in the acquittal's of Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson.

The difference between you and me is that you are fine considering them credible when they support your claims. For me, no sir. I will just exclude them altogether because they are paid to play mind games with a jury.

 

[BBB167893]

See, this doesn't make any sense Dave. I run down Lee and Spitz because they are prostitute for hire defense witnesses that were instrumental in the acquittal's of Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson.

Oh, but it DOES make sense, pilgrim. I find it to be the height of hypocrisy for IDI to complain about witnesses for hire. You might not want to pursue that line of thinking too much. I sure wouldn't if I were you.

The difference between you and me is that you are fine considering them credible when they support your claims. For me, no sir. I will just exclude them altogether because they are paid to play mind games with a jury.

Oh, well then, I suppose you won't mind if I do the same to the "experts" on your side!

And don't change the subject. I find it highly hypocritical for a member of IDI to complain about a child-killer walking free, since IDI has, by definition, thrown in their lot with child-killers and, in my humble opinion, contributed to people getting away with murder. And I FEAR for your souls.

 

[smurf86]

Dave I didn't know you knew of the McCann case, from what I remember they found a hair in the boot of the hire car and as it had the root attached to it they were able to DNA test it and the DNA was maddies. Also kates diary she describes maddy as a difficult child and other not nice things.

 

[Roy23]

Oh, but it DOES make sense, pilgrim. I find it to be the height of hypocrisy for IDI to complain about witnesses for hire. You might not want to pursue that line of thinking too much. I sure wouldn't if I were you.



Oh, well then, I suppose you won't mind if I do the same to the "experts" on your side!

And don't change the subject. I find it highly hypocritical for a member of IDI to complain about a child-killer walking free, since IDI has, by definition, thrown in their lot with child-killers and, in my humble opinion, contributed to people getting away with murder. And I FEAR for your souls.

Big big difference bucko. You have to be extremely conceited and arrogant to state my opinion has something to do with child killers being free. They did not even get an indictment from Grand Jury proceedings. They have a legitimate sample of DNA that passes well enough to be placed in CODIS.

Whatever your opinions are about those facts in evidence are simply that--Opinions. Add to that the shoddy piece of crap work done by the detectives in this case in protecting a crime scene.

Now, again, explain to me how it is my fault that a Ramsey never had to walk in a courtroom? I would be fearing for your own soul, Dave. The BPD has basically excluded POI's and Investigators based on DNA. It is there for the reading, BUD. But keep on keepin on and discount it.

 

[wonderllama]

**snipped to save space**

I list some specific examples of this happening:

-the Aisenbergs of Florida;

-The McCanns;

-the Midyettes (who didn't QUITE get away with it, but it helps illustrate the different treatment wealthy killers in Boulder get);

-and now Casey Anthony.

That's where I stand on it.

I don't know the Midyettes, but I've followed the McCann case quite closely and in all honesty, I'm yet to be convinced they did it.

I see lazy parenting, but I'm not seeing killers.

 

[passionflower]

With this jury not interested in the evidence, or deliberating,not following the rules, not asking for help in what to do as the law.........I would also say no common sense.
IMO, lazy, quick and let's get out of here attitude.
I see this everyday and it scares me!
Even a fast food restaurant can't get the order right and then smacks it down at you .
Attitude, common sense and morals are out the window.
Forgive me, but things are NOT the way they were 20 years ago.
I wonder if our laws will change someday like foreign courts that judge you by judges only?
I talk to people who say they will never serve on a jury, won't vote......feels it is not their problem.
I do not understand anything anymore.
Common sense to me is listen to the experts, FBI, dog handlers and evidence.
Next IMO, we might hear some guy on the jury fell in love with kc and is dating............... nothing shocks me anymore.........

 

[FairM]

It's a bit more than just that, pilgrim. I actually meant this thread as a companion piece to the "chickens roosting" thread. Yes, I believe the jury in this case was stupid. But what seems to have gone unnoticed here is WHY they were stupid.

I actually devote an entire chapter in the book to what I refer to as "The JonBenet Syndrome." What is "the JonBenet Syndrome," do you ask?

Simply put, it's the possibility that people thought they could get away with killing their children because the Ramseys got away with it. The Ramseys and their supporters (ALL of them) have supplied what amounts to a how-to manual for getting away with it: lie and attack everything and everyone. (Just to use a specific example: the way Roy has chosen to run down Lee and Spitz. Sorry, pilgrim. Been there, done that!)

I list some specific examples of this happening:

-the Aisenbergs of Florida;

-The McCanns;

-the Midyettes (who didn't QUITE get away with it, but it helps illustrate the different treatment wealthy killers in Boulder get);

-and now Casey Anthony.

That's where I stand on it.

The McCanns???? Seriously?? come on, use that good old common sense of yours and you will see they are not guilty of killing their daughter!

Hiya SD!:great:

Have you given up on CS, ?:innocent:

Well done on the radio show btw , good for you I think that deserves a cookie or two lol

 

[FairM]

Dave I didn't know you knew of the McCann case, from what I remember they found a hair in the boot of the hire car and as it had the root attached to it they were able to DNA test it and the DNA was maddies. Also kates diary she describes maddy as a difficult child and other not nice things.

Hiya Smurf:great:

I think you are right they did find a hair or something similar with possible DNA from Maddie in the hire car - however remember that they didn't hire this car until AFTER Maddie was abducted - so are you seriously suggesting that they could have moved her body in that car when they had all the worlds media watching their every move?? more likely it was transferred from an item put in the boot which may have had a stray hair of Maddie's on it.
I am reading Kate's book atm and she doesn't say anything in her diary that I would say is "not nice" about Maddie other than the usual about how children can be difficult at times.

 

[vlpate]

Big big difference bucko. You have to be extremely conceited and arrogant to state my opinion has something to do with child killers being free. They did not even get an indictment from Grand Jury proceedings. They have a legitimate sample of DNA that passes well enough to be placed in CODIS.

Whatever your opinions are about those facts in evidence are simply that--Opinions. Add to that the shoddy piece of crap work done by the detectives in this case in protecting a crime scene.

Now, again, explain to me how it is my fault that a Ramsey never had to walk in a courtroom? I would be fearing for your own soul, Dave. The BPD has basically excluded POI's and Investigators based on DNA. It is there for the reading, BUD. But keep on keepin on and discount it.

The old IDI, "they didn't get an indictment" argument. The Grand Jury didn't vote. Back to just the degraded artifact....DNA. If the IDI's just had one more piece of evidence that was a little more solid. Just one....

 

[Roy23]

The old IDI, "they didn't get an indictment" argument. The Grand Jury didn't vote. Back to just the degraded artifact....DNA. If the IDI's just had one more piece of evidence that was a little more solid. Just one....

LOL! Dang right they didn't vote. No reason too. And you might want to read the qualifications for getting a DNA sample into CODIS.

 

[I Must Break You]

Just to pick a bit out of your post again, sorry

It does make it reasonable doubt if the prosecution can't dismiss it.
And simply put, they couldn't.
And why couldn't they?
Cos they had never considered it to be an option!

A smart prosecution covers its butt.

There's the doubt...."Oh, maybe he DID have something to do with it...they can't prove he didn't".

We may all be suffering from knowing too much about the case rather than approaching it from a layperson's position.

So according to this no one should get convicted with a circumstantial case again... cause well the defense can always just say another guy did it and since that can't be unproven..snap not guilty.

 

[vlpate]

LOL! Dang right they didn't vote. No reason too. And you might want to read the qualifications for getting a DNA sample into CODIS.

I sure wish you would read up on this case, arguing the points that are easily located with a simple search, is exhaustive.

Alex Hunter didn't allow a vote.

The DNA could not include or exclude MK because it could have been mixed or degraded. It will never convict anyone and it is not proof of an intruder.

I didn't just come to this case yesterday, and I didn't read PMPT and suddenly believe I am an expert. Following this case from day one has been work and I refuse to argue with someone who can't be bothered to do the work.

 

[Roy23]

I sure wish you would read up on this case, arguing the points that are easily located with a simple search, is exhaustive.

Alex Hunter didn't allow a vote.

The DNA could not include or exclude MK because it could have been mixed or degraded. It will never convict anyone and it is not proof of an intruder.

I didn't just come to this case yesterday, and I didn't read PMPT and suddenly believe I am an expert. Following this case from day one has been work and I refuse to argue with someone who can't be bothered to do the work.

You got to be kidding me. I know it is hard for you but it is impossible for the DNA to be mixed at this point. They have it from numerous areas and have substaniated it to be from a single individual. You would have to have your head in the sand to not realize that they have DNA from other sources as well.

You can just guess how I know that. I didn't research it on the internet.

 

[wonderllama]

So according to this no one should get convicted with a circumstantial case again... cause well the defense can always just say another guy did it and since that can't be unproven..snap not guilty.

No Ivan Drago, that's not what I'm saying...

What I'm saying, and what I've ALWAYS been saying in this thread, is that it is wrong to call the jury dumb and say common sense has gone out the window in this case.

The job of the Prosecutor is to prove that the defendant committed the crime.
The job of the Defence Team is to either prove they didn't or to cast sufficient doubt on the conclusions being made by the Prosecutors, that they can't find the person guilty BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

Every single person who has posted in this thread shouldn't be questioning the intelligence of the jury, they shouldn't even be questioning common sense....they should be questioning whether they agree that enough REASONABLE DOUBT was present - given what the Jury were told - for them to not be able to find Casey Anthony guilty.

Every juror I've heard interviewed or seen a report on has said that they believed she was guilty, but there was reasonable doubt.

This isn't being dumb, this isn't showing a lack of common sense, and it is in NO WAY reason, as you suggest, for people to throw out cases which are circumstantial.

You guys are confusing the fundamental issues in the case.
Casey Anthony was guilty of being a crap mother, she was guilty of deceiving police, she was guilty of lots of dodgy behaviour...but when it came to the crunch, all these deceptions and lies actually HELPED her when the Defence said "Well, it was an accident, but George and Casey covered it up"...

The difference between Casey Anthony and The Ramseys is that their lies and deceptions BEGAN on the night of JBR's death. Casey Anthony has a HISTORY of this sort of behaviour and this was introduced to the jury.

I'll say it again, and I'll leave some space so people can see it..

.
.
.
.
.

I THINK SHE DID IT!

But where we all differ is that because you don't agree with the result, you call the jury dumb, say common sense is lost and then to top it off, whinge about your Justice System.

Name calling - Dumb Jury, I can appreciate the frustration people feel.
Common Sense out the window - Sounds like sour grapes for not being the result you believed in
Criticizing your Justice System - sorry, that's beyond ridiculous and is so off the mark as to be offensive. As I've said, name a better Justice System, a FAIRER Justice System, cos unless it's from the Planet Koozebane, you're kidding yourself.

 

[vlpate]

You got to be kidding me. I know it is hard for you but it is impossible for the DNA to be mixed at this point. They have it from numerous areas and have substaniated it to be from a single individual. You would have to have your head in the sand to not realize that they have DNA from other sources as well.

You can just guess how I know that. I didn't research it on the internet.

Which DNA samples are you referring to? The touch DNA determined to be from someone other than the Ramsey's on her long johns and underwear, or the DNA samples taken from the drops of blood that magically grew another marker years after the murder and during Mary Keenan's reign as DA?

What I meant in my previous post was the DNA evidence could not include or exclude the Ramsey's as suspects....it obviously can include or exclude in terms of the donor of the DNA.

Cynic posted several excellent points on the DNA evidence, and sources each point - wow, imagine, sources!

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6372442"]Ramsey Project Rebuttal (Non Intruder Posters Only) - Page 4 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[FairM]

Which DNA samples are you referring to? The touch DNA determined to be from someone other than the Ramsey's on her long johns and underwear, or the DNA samples taken from the drops of blood that magically grew another marker years after the murder and during Mary Keenan's reign as DA?

What I meant in my previous post was the DNA evidence could not include or exclude the Ramsey's as suspects....it obviously can include or exclude in terms of the donor of the DNA.

Cynic posted several excellent points on the DNA evidence, and sources each point - wow, imagine, sources!

Ramsey Project Rebuttal (Non Intruder Posters Only) - Page 4 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Hi
Do you think DNA can be used to exclude other suspects than the Ramseys? It seems that this was used by the police to exclude some suspects.

I'd like to find out more about the Grand Jury proceedings and I note that you state the DA wouldn't let them vote , wanted to look at the source of that please, ta.

 

[Roy23]

Which DNA samples are you referring to? The touch DNA determined to be from someone other than the Ramsey's on her long johns and underwear, or the DNA samples taken from the drops of blood that magically grew another marker years after the murder and during Mary Keenan's reign as DA?

What I meant in my previous post was the DNA evidence could not include or exclude the Ramsey's as suspects....it obviously can include or exclude in terms of the donor of the DNA.

Cynic posted several excellent points on the DNA evidence, and sources each point - wow, imagine, sources!

Ramsey Project Rebuttal (Non Intruder Posters Only) - Page 4 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

You are kind of making my point here. I have read all of Cynic's sources. None of it is pertinent today. I agree with you 100% on the fact that the DNA excludes the Ramseys but cannot exclude them as suspects with all certainty. I have never argued otherwise. Lacy was premature with this announcement even though she is probably correct.

Now my point is that Garnett and especially Beckner won't say what Lacy said BUT, they know they got a killers(whether for hire) DNA. Sometimes people forget that Beckner was involved in the "touch DNA" conference and helped in determining which areas should be tested. He was involved with it all.

Yes, way back in the day around 1998 LE had a DNA sample that consisted of 9 markers. Did not even pass the strict test of Codis. We all know it. But you should also know if you watch any crime shows that sometimes they sit this DNA on the shelf for another day. Technological advances have been very swift over the last two decades. And in 2002 they took it off the shelf and tried something a little different. What do we know? Yep, Voila it was placed in CODIS and that means it had a minimum of 10 markers. They ain't gonna come out and say it but it has been vaguely reported that this also matched the fingernail DNA to the panty DNA. And Yeah I know what has been reported about that too.

If you do the math and study the words coming out of Beckner's mouth it becomes real simple. And I know some of what they say contradicts itself. They have said they have eliminated POI's, Investigators, CSI's because of the DNA. The problems they now have with DNA are not the samples that they have. The problem comes in court with how it was collected and intial issues they had many years ago.

 

[I Must Break You]

No Ivan Drago, that's not what I'm saying...

What I'm saying, and what I've ALWAYS been saying in this thread, is that it is wrong to call the jury dumb and say common sense has gone out the window in this case.

The job of the Prosecutor is to prove that the defendant committed the crime.
The job of the Defence Team is to either prove they didn't or to cast sufficient doubt on the conclusions being made by the Prosecutors, that they can't find the person guilty BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

Every single person who has posted in this thread shouldn't be questioning the intelligence of the jury, they shouldn't even be questioning common sense....they should be questioning whether they agree that enough REASONABLE DOUBT was present - given what the Jury were told - for them to not be able to find Casey Anthony guilty.

Every juror I've heard interviewed or seen a report on has said that they believed she was guilty, but there was reasonable doubt.

This isn't being dumb, this isn't showing a lack of common sense, and it is in NO WAY reason, as you suggest, for people to throw out cases which are circumstantial.

You guys are confusing the fundamental issues in the case.
Casey Anthony was guilty of being a crap mother, she was guilty of deceiving police, she was guilty of lots of dodgy behaviour...but when it came to the crunch, all these deceptions and lies actually HELPED her when the Defence said "Well, it was an accident, but George and Casey covered it up"...

The difference between Casey Anthony and The Ramseys is that their lies and deceptions BEGAN on the night of JBR's death. Casey Anthony has a HISTORY of this sort of behaviour and this was introduced to the jury.

I'll say it again, and I'll leave some space so people can see it..

.
.
.
.
.

I THINK SHE DID IT!

But where we all differ is that because you don't agree with the result, you call the jury dumb, say common sense is lost and then to top it off, whinge about your Justice System.

Name calling - Dumb Jury, I can appreciate the frustration people feel.
Common Sense out the window - Sounds like sour grapes for not being the result you believed in
Criticizing your Justice System - sorry, that's beyond ridiculous and is so off the mark as to be offensive. As I've said, name a better Justice System, a FAIRER Justice System, cos unless it's from the Planet Koozebane, you're kidding yourself.

I don't believe there is a better justice system, even though I'm positive it failed in this case. I truly believe there was evidence beyond a REASONABLE doubt. There is the problem, it's partly the CSI effect and partly defense attorney perverting the term beyond a Reasonable doubt to beyond an ABSOLUTE doubt. If the jurors aren't completely convinced that the person on trial is 200% guilty they lean not guilty these days. Beyond a reasonable doubt is not nearly that conclusive and aside from having a video of an actual event nothing is (heck even videos can be seen subjectively).