The IDI Chickens have come home to roost

[Chrishope]

Quote:
As for circumstantial evidence, when a case is built on nothing else it probably shouldn't succeed.

That's precisely the attitude I'm railing against! Nothing against you, Chrishope. From what I can tell, it's a much bigger problem than just a few people.

That was a poorly considered statement on my part. I withdraw it. Circumstantial evidence should be enough to convict, but the devil will be in the details, and there will also be reasonable doubt to contend with. In the Anthony case they did a good job of introducing (manufacturing, if you prefer) reasonable doubt.

I can't go along with calling jurors stupid or assuming that someone isn't smart because they couldn't get out of jury duty. If you have statistical evidence that those selected for jury duty are of below the median IQ, I'd be interested to see it. Otherwise, I think we're going to have to assume they are all of normal intelligence. If some measure of jury intelligence exists, it might even surprise us - they might be above average. Is there any data?

 

[BBB167893]

Sunnie,

You have the right to believe whatever you want. I have reason to believe it is important the DNA is there and when you have it in many different areas calling it mixed is uninformed. I also have good reason to believe that they had already substantiated it even BEFORE the touch DNA results.

The bottom line though is that at least over the past couple of years I have tried to behave in a manner that Websleuths was founded on. I have tried to even avoid the fights and attacks. Dave and I are stuck on opposite ends of the spectrum and I have accepted that. I don't attack or try to belittle any RDI besides the ring leader who attacks me on this board anymore.

I also totally believe that the BPD and Mark Beckner are almost certain of IDI. Is it not my right to believe that?

It's not your lack of humility that's the problem, Roy. In many ways, you're a lot better than some I've known. My problem isn't with you, specifically; my problem is with the "circumstantial evidence isn't real evidence" nish that the IDI perspective often lends itself to. I'd always suspected it would be dangerous to society. Casey going free proved it.

 

[BBB167893]

With respect to your signature and recent posts relating to Lacy, Beckner, the BPD and their take on the DNA “evidence” and the investigation in general, I believe you are attempting to rewrite history.

Another problem I have with FJs, cynic. Most of 'em, anyway.

 

[Roy23]

It's not your lack of humility that's the problem, Roy. In many ways, you're a lot better than some I've known. My problem isn't with you, specifically; my problem is with the "circumstantial evidence isn't real evidence" nish that the IDI perspective often lends itself to. I'd always suspected it would be dangerous to society. Casey going free proved it.

There is a big difference Dave between calling out an IDI perspective versus calling me out personally. My name is not IDI. I also realize that in most cases where a pretty little white girls gets killed or goes missing that more evidence gets presented, more media coverage gets displayed, and etc.

The problem is here is you called me out. Not IDI.

 

[BBB167893]

Bottom line....most people find it difficult to believe a mother could murder her child. Especially a attractive white woman. If Casey were a poor black woman, she would have stood a better chance of being convicted and if she were a man, she'd be sitting on death row as I type. Pasty played the loving doting mother ...(she was far from it IMO behind closed doors.) Loving doting moms don't kill their kids...atleast that's what jurors tend to think.

That's pretty much what one of the Anthony jurors said, too.

IMO This case is solved. It was a Ramsey. They simply were unable to prove who did what, beyond a reasonable doubt, to a jury.

Agreed. And I'm not the only one. Alex Hunter couldn't convict a weasel for stealing chickens. And Mary Lacy made HIM look like Rudy Giuliani.

 

[Roy23]

That was a poorly considered statement on my part. I withdraw it. Circumstantial evidence should be enough to convict, but the devil will be in the details, and there will also be reasonable doubt to contend with. In the Anthony case they did a good job of introducing (manufacturing, if you prefer) reasonable doubt.

I can't go along with calling jurors stupid or assuming that someone isn't smart because they couldn't get out of jury duty. If you have statistical evidence that those selected for jury duty are of below the median IQ, I'd be interested to see it. Otherwise, I think we're going to have to assume they are all of normal intelligence. If some measure of jury intelligence exists, it might even surprise us - they might be above average. Is there any data?

Not really Chrishope and you are right that just calling 12 random people stupid is not the answer. I believe Casey to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 12 people concluded in 10 hours that was not the case. All 12 of them. I don't blame CSI. After reflection, I think Casey was overcharged. And when I say that, I believe I would have given her first degree and death. But I wasn't on the jury.

The prosecution seemed very qualified. The problem was they spent much of their case on premeditation. And all of this without a cause of death. To top it off, Casey's family made depositions early on way before they actually realized their daughter killed their granddaughter and before Casey turned on her own family. I also think it is understandable that Casey's family did not want to be a part of giving Casey the needle.

 

[BBB167893]

Or do you mean that Patsy or John would've gotten the DP if the case went to trial?

Highly unlikely, eileen. For one thing, Alex Hunter was a bleeding-heart liberal who was against the death penalty and had never asked for it his entire time as DA. But even if the governor had done what he SHOULD have done and appointed a special prosecutor to try the case, given that it was most likely accidental, the case would most likely have ended with either a plea bargain or a light sentence. In many ways, charging the Ramseys with first-degree, capital murder would have been a severe overreach, much like what happened with Casey Anthony.

 

[BBB167893]

IMO She was implying that Patsy did it and Patsy died. I tend to agree. Karma and all that jazz...imo

You can't escape it.

 

[BBB167893]

Some people think it's ironic that Patsy died from ovarian cancer.

Ironic how?

 

[Chrishope]

Not really Chrishope and you are right that just calling 12 random people stupid is not the answer. I believe Casey to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 12 people concluded in 10 hours that was not the case. All 12 of them. I don't blame CSI. After reflection, I think Casey was overcharged. And when I say that, I believe I would have given her first degree and death. But I wasn't on the jury.

The prosecution seemed very qualified. The problem was they spent much of their case on premeditation. And all of this without a cause of death. To top it off, Casey's family made depositions early on way before they actually realized their daughter killed their granddaughter and before Casey turned on her own family. I also think it is understandable that Casey's family did not want to be a part of giving Casey the needle.

I think that pretty well sums it up.

 

[BBB167893]

Your whole idea of starting this thread and directing it specifically to me is and was wrong.

I'll keep my own counsel on what's right and wrong, thank you. But just for the tally book, my fight's not with you as such. It's with a certain viewpoint which I believe is detrimental to society. And for that, I will not apologize.

What I WILL apologize for is the pleasure I took in it.

I never have said anything about you can't try a circumstancial case. Your thoughts on Casey Anthony are spot on. I agree with it. It is completely different than my view of the Ramsey case.

I understand that.

The GJ failed to indict the Ramsey's. It was said that it was due to lack of evidence. Challenge that all you want, it is your right.

And I plan to exercise it.

But don't expect others to follow you around like sheep.

I DON'T! That's the LAST damn thing I want!

I now have a whole different view of you.

That statement might bother me if not for the fact that I don't remember your view of me being that great to begin with. But I'm sure you can explain it.

And I have asked you numerous times lately to knock off the debating with me. You and I are deadlocked in our beliefs. For me, it was fine to just sit back and wait and see until something developed.

Well, that's the difference between us. I CAN'T just sit and wait for something. I CAN'T just do nothing. You see? In a situation like this, I feel I HAVE to do something.

At least it wouldn't turn into attacks just like you did by starting this thread. And what bothers me most about it is that it is not true.

Very well, then. I'm content to grant your wish. You go your way and I'll go mine. Live and let live. Right?

 

[BBB167893]

There is a big difference Dave between calling out an IDI perspective versus calling me out personally.

You're right about that. And it was not my intention to confuse the two. But you were the best example I could think of, always ranting about how TDNA gives you carte blanche to dismiss all the other evidence. When I saw what that attitude did with Casey Anthony, I saw red. Then, when I saw where you were upset over what had happened with Casey, I thought, "what NERVE some people have!" The kicker was where you said you didn't know what to tell your family. Given how bitter I was in general (still am) I decided to "help" you.

My name is not IDI. I also realize that in most cases where a pretty little white girls gets killed or goes missing that more evidence gets presented, more media coverage gets displayed, and etc.

The problem is here is you called me out. Not IDI.

I used you as an example. I KNOW who I called out.

 

[wonderllama]

IMO She was implying that Patsy did it and Patsy died. I tend to agree. Karma and all that jazz...imo

I'm a He!

And yes, you got it spot on.

 

[Roy23]

You're right about that. And it was not my intention to confuse the two. But you were the best example I could think of, always ranting about how TDNA gives you carte blanche to dismiss all the other evidence. When I saw what that attitude did with Casey Anthony, I saw red. Then, when I saw where you were upset over what had happened with Casey, I thought, "what NERVE some people have!" The kicker was where you said you didn't know what to tell your family. Given how bitter I was in general (still am) I decided to "help" you.



I used you as an example. I KNOW who I called out.

Well, I still think it is wrong to attempt to call me out here. Frankly, this whole thing should have been deleted but we have come to some common ground since this thread started. I actually could have picked a few bones with you on this whole Casey Anthony case. One is your continous reference to the Great Warner Spitz. I wondered how you were feeling about him since you like to bring him up concerning stun gun references to JBR.

Did you see him testify for Jose Baez?

 

[BBB167893]

I actually could have picked a few bones with you on this whole Casey Anthony case.

Go right ahead.

One is your continous reference to the Great Werner Spitz. I wondered how you were feeling about him since you like to bring him up concerning stun gun references to JBR.

Did you see him testify for Jose Baez?

I figured you'd get around to that. Yes, I saw, and my feelings have not changed. He didn't say anything in the Casey Anthony trial that wasn't true. And you're damn right I bring him up concerning JB stun gun references, and a few OTHER things.

 

[Roy23]

Go right ahead.



I figured you'd get around to that. Yes, I saw, and my feelings have not changed. He didn't say anything in the Casey Anthony trial that wasn't true. And you're damn right I bring him up concerning JB stun gun references, and a few OTHER things.

Okay Dave, so you concur that instead of the CSI effect, that the jury said innocent as one said could have exonerated Casey Anthony because Dr. G did a shoddy job. You also believe that the skull was moved and tampered with. No wonder Casey is free.

 

[BBB167893]

Okay Dave, so you concur that instead of the CSI effect, that the jury said innocent as one said could have exonerated Casey Anthony because Dr. G did a shoddy job. You also believe that the skull was moved and tampered with. No wonder Casey is free.

You're putting words in my mouth, pilgrim. Frankly, if you have a point, I'd be obliged if you'd get to it.

 

[Roy23]

You're putting words in my mouth, pilgrim. Frankly, if you have a point, I'd be obliged if you'd get to it.

The point is you said Dr Spitz told the truth in the Casey Anthony case.


1.keep in mind that he said Dr. G did a shoddy job.

2. He also suggested that LE did things with the skull that suggest a frame job.

Go back and watch Ashton pounding on that guy. He is a good reason Casey walks today.

 

[BBB167893]

The point is you said Dr Spitz told the truth in the Casey Anthony case.

As he saw it, yes.

1.keep in mind that he said Dr. G did a shoddy job.

If my understanding is correct, he's not the only one.

2. He also suggested that LE did things with the skull that suggest a frame job.

And that means what to me?

Go back and watch Ashton pounding on that guy.

They both did their jobs. Like I said, pilgrim, if there's a point to this, I'd prefer you got to it. If you're trying to say that Spitz can't be trusted in this case because of what happened in the Anthony trial, you can forget about it. It won't work. If you want to talk about the problem of experts for hire, I suggest you start a little closer to home.

He is a good reason Casey walks today.

Casey walked for the reasons I told you about, the very ones I started this thread on:

--the inability of modern jurors to connect the dots of circumstantial cases, ie, the CSI effect;

--the inability of most people to conceive that a mother could do this to her own child (God knows I encounter that idea enough on THIS case)

--the cross fingerpointing strategy, since the cause of death could not be determined--which is what Spitz meant when he said a shoddy job.

I'm on to you, pilgrim. And it won't work.

Oh, before I forget, there's one other thing I'd say. Just something for you to reflect on. There's another reason why that's not a good comparison: when it comes to stun gun injuries, staging and cause of death in THIS case, Spitz is not alone. Not by a DAMN sight. If he were, that would be one thing. But in this instance, there's a virtual army of experts that agrees with him.

 

[Roy23]

As he saw it, yes.



If my understanding is correct, he's not the only one.



And that means what to me?



They both did their jobs. Like I said, pilgrim, if there's a point to this, I'd prefer you got to it. If you're trying to say that Spitz can't be trusted in this case because of what happened in the Anthony trial, you can forget about it. It won't work. If you want to talk about the problem of experts for hire, I suggest you start a little closer to home.



Casey walked for the reasons I told you about, the very ones I started this thread on:

--the inability of modern jurors to connect the dots of circumstantial cases, ie, the CSI effect;

--the inability of most people to conceive that a mother could do this to her own child (God knows I encounter that idea enough on THIS case)

--the cross fingerpointing strategy, since the cause of death could not be determined--which is what Spitz meant when he said a shoddy job.

I'm on to you, pilgrim. And it won't work.

Oh, before I forget, there's one other thing I'd say. Just something for you to reflect on. There's another reason why that's not a good comparison: when it comes to stun gun injuries, staging and cause of death in THIS case, Spitz is not alone. Not by a DAMN sight. If he were, that would be one thing. But in this instance, there's a virtual army of experts that agrees with him.

LOL!

You are on to me, please Dave. Somebody explain this logic to him. Why can't you just admit that it is not only CSI effect, the dumbing down of America, but also paid prostitutes like Warner Spitz who gets paid to dump on a case. You can't have it both brotha.

Just say Spitz is wrong in the Anthony case and right in the JBR case. Or maybe just maybe you could see how folks on a Jury could get confused as the Great Prostitute takes the stand and suggests the body was placed there in recent months.