[Ariadne22]

Originally Posted by nevergoingback

The jurors that have spoke are complete morons.

Apparently, so. Incapable of using common sense to connect the dots. Thought provoking and insightful comments on the NYT.

Justice can never be properly served as long as people with uncultivated minds dominate juries.

In that sense, Judge Perry indirectly (and directly, too) had a hand in basically "stacking" the jury. He probably wasn't intending to do that, but what the heck was he thinking in allowing some of those people to serve on that jury? This was a highly publicized case. The media circus alone demanded greater care in selecting the jury.

I'm not saying the jurors shouldn't have tried to listen to the defense's arguments with an open mind, but they sure as heck shouldn't have kept their minds so closed to the prosecution's arguments, which were eminently more rational and organized, and so CLEARLY supported by solid forensic and circumstantial evidence.

To arbitrarily decide the forensic evidence wasn't substantial was VERY irresponsible.

Anthony Is Sentenced to 4-Year Term for Lying - Readers' Comments - NYTimes.com

Or, this:

There have been studies that show that the enlargement of the jury pool due to more people paying state taxes have proved to be pragmatic.

It seems that many of the people now eligible to be called to jury duty lack the intelligence to fully grasp the nuances of complicated evidence.

They often can't follow the presentation of evidence proffered by the defense or the State. Needless to say, there must be more than a person's tax record to qualify to sit on a jury.

Let's not forget that the latest figures show that fully 20% of our citizenry are functioning illiterates and read on a 3rd. grade level.

Anthony Is Sentenced to 4-Year Term for Lying - Readers' Comments - NYTimes.com

My son served as an alternate on one such jury in a medical malpractice case, but by luck of a random draw was eliminated. Plaintiff awarded over $100 million. Very scientific case, unwed mother, breach birth, no prenatal care. Found against the doctor. During the trial, jurors were commenting they decided the case immediately when they saw the disabled child and the 10 days of presentation of scientific evidence was of no interest to them. It was a travesty on many levels. No one on the final jury had more than a high school education, if that. Those eliminated were college educated and of a very different mind on the outcome. Uncultivated minds, indeed.

Originally Posted by nevergoingback

Aggravated manslaughter is hardly going for the max.

These were the charges:

-Count One, First Degree Murder (sentence life to death)
(Lesser Included of Count One, Second Degree Murder; sentence 24-life)
-Count Two, Aggravated Child Abuse (sentence 12-15 years)
-Count Three, Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child (sentence 16-30 years)

It was a combination of stupidity and laziness that prevented their working through this and finding an appropriate charge. For me, it's Murder 1 - she planned this - researched the choloform to put her to sleep, put duct tape on mouth and nose to smother her. For whatever her reasons, it was premeditated. No accident. Family in denial for over a month.

Originally Posted by trlhiker

Haven't you learned yet that no matter what anyone thinks, it is up to the prosecution to prove beyond all doubt who killed her.
Plus I already stated earlier what i believe.

It is a 'reasonable doubt' NOT beyond ALL doubt. Wrong, there. Jurors didn't know any more than you do, apparently. Which goes back to the issue of the uncultivated mind. Sad state of affairs.

The trail of computer search on chloroform, duct tape, lying to police for months eliminates reasonable doubt. Initially, I thought perhaps accident and then a coverup to avoid wrath of George and Cindy. But, Casey plays George and Cindy like fiddles. No, indeed, Casey wanted to go her merry way. She planned this. It was a premeditated act. The lying alone should have been enough to convict her.