..it's WHAT he says:
Cheney-----"You can pretty well predict that there's going to be a life sentence. And, and either a plea and get it over with, or have a circus trial and then be convicted and then get life."
..using logic and common sense-----it can be reasonably deduced that the speaker ---is predicting that one way or another, kc anthony is going to get a life sentence.
..no-one "predicts" a life sentence for someone they think is innocent.
..if he DID think she was innocent----he would have been shouting THAT loud and clear-----but he didn't.
..therefore----he either believed that she was guilty--or that the evidence (even then) was strong enough that a plea would get her life--or a trial would get her life.....convicted/Guilty/life sentence.
..just b/c you didn't "hear him say"----i think kc is guilty.------doesn't mean that he didn't infer such through what he DID say.
..which i believe was a HUGE problem with the jury.
..they HAD available to them all of the trial testimony/physical evidence/expert opinions/videos/pictures/jail calls/CSI reports etc etc---to use in their deliberations----applying logic/common sense/drawing reasonable inferences/connecting dots...
..but it appears that they too said:
----"Am I crazy? And just not seeing it?"
b/c the state did not provide them with a video.
Personally, CM says whatever gets his mug on TV.
It is risky to apply logic/common sense and draw reasonable inferences. It is risky because you're gonna have to take responsibility for it. I think some folks are so intimidated by the risk that they avoid making decisions at all. Then, they can blame someone else (like the prosecution) rather than themselves if it all goes sideways.
They just felt "sick" that they "had" to acquit this person who obviously had SOMETHING to do with Caylee's death. If only the prosecution had done their JOB and presented decent evidence, THEN none of this crap (read: public criticism) would have happened.
It's not THEIR fault a possible killer got to walk. It was the prosecutions fault. And that mean, unfair public, criticizing them for doing their best with the crappy excuse for evidence they were forced to work with!
Not only does Casey Anthony walk free, so do the jurors who've rationalized their cowardice into some kind of moral highhorse. They refused to bring a criminal to justice and found a clever (but transparent) explanation for doing it.
I'll admit I have avoided responsibility countless times in my life, most of the time I do it automatically. I'd just rather "not decide" and then when the consequences come, I can say "well I was just sitting here minding my own business when . . ."
I believe I can relate with how the jury appears to have handled their responsibility. If folks are honest, I think we all can.
No amount of clever fake "morality" or "integrity" one might convince oneself of makes for real morality or integrity.
They saw the gravity of their responsibility, and instead of rising to the occasion -- admittedly a very serious one -- they copped out.
I've done it in my life. And suffered for it. I don't see anything unfair to the jury about pointing this out about them. It's not like they are the first people to commit an act of extreme cowardice. It's practically the human condition to get yourself in a pickle like this
