Sidebar Discussion

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
sorry to pop in and interrupt yall's serious conversation with this bit of fluff, but I saw this and for SOME REASON??!?!? thought of OCA and CA right away, gee I dont know why?? :floorlaugh:

347fbt2.jpg
 
PeteyGirl said:
Opinions are either superior or inferior when compared to facts.

Virtually every pre-Classical culture from China to the Norse/Germanic people had a solid, enduring cosmology that included a flat Earth (a flat "round" in some cultures, the Chinese believed the Earth was a "square" floating in a spherical cosmos).

Yes, with the evidence presented in this case, the "opinion" it was insufficient to even prove neglect is as outrageous as a flat Earth. I'm glad to know I live in a society where most of the people are willing to make those connections instead of collapsing into a stew of insensate over-relativity.
Click to expand...

bbm

Brillant, thank you.

imo
 
I just read that it had been over 20 years since Orange County had sequestered a jury for the duration of a trial. It was Judge P's decision to sequester through the whole trial, they do have the option to sequester only the deliberations. Article said it can be emotionally and personally taxing to take jurors away from their support system. They can experience post traumatic stress disorder, particulary a trial with gruesome evidence.
They are told where they can go, what they read, watch on TV, when they can talk to family.
 
PeteyGirl said:
Opinions are either superior or inferior when compared to facts.

Virtually every pre-Classical culture from China to the Norse/Germanic people had a solid, enduring cosmology that included a flat Earth (a flat "round" in some cultures, the Chinese believed the Earth was a "square" floating in a spherical cosmos).

Yes, with the evidence presented in this case, the "opinion" it was insufficient to even prove neglect is as outrageous as a flat Earth. I'm glad to know I live in a society where most of the people are willing to make those connections instead of collapsing into a stew of insensate over-relativity.
Click to expand...


Ya...What she said....:seeya:
 
The problem with using the 'flat earthers' analogy to say that some of our opinions are inferior (or superior) is that it comes down to a question of who the 'flat earthers' are.

In this case, a very good argument could be made that those who don't believe that the prevailing theory that's been around for years was proven in court aren't the 'flat earthers'.

I don't think it's a good analogy to use here.

Edited to make this clearer: I don't think one can label the other 'side' as having a flat-earth mentality just because they don't reach the same conclusions as others do. It's more complicated than that.
 
LOL that doesn't surprise me. Most likely opinions won't be changed here.

For example A is certain the jurors were brilliant and made the right decision.

B feels certain that the jurors were inept and had no clue what they were doing. B also feels the jurors didn't understand their choices and let a murderer walk free.

No one will change anyone elses minds.

imo
 
MarthaM said:
The problem with using the 'flat earthers' analogy to say that some of our opinions are inferior (or superior) is that it comes down to a question of who the 'flat earthers' are.

In this case, a very good argument could be made that those who don't believe that the prevailing theory that's been around for years was proven in court aren't the 'flat earthers'.

I don't think it's a good analogy to use here.

Edited to make this clearer: I don't think one can label the other 'side' as having a flat-earth mentality just because they don't reach the same conclusions as others do. It's more complicated than that.
Click to expand...

Not really, the flat earther analogy is not the point.

The point is the evidence and how it is put together and formed into beliefs. The process by which this is done is either inferior or superior (so to speak).

You either approach the "truth" or you retreat from it, based upon the quality of the logic used.
 
PeteyGirl said:
Not really, the flat earther analogy is not the point.

The point is the evidence and how it is put together and formed into beliefs. The process by which this is done is either inferior or superior (so to speak).

You either approach the "truth" or you retreat from it, based upon the quality of the logic used.
Click to expand...


I understand what you're trying to say, but assumptions about the process that this jury used are being made based on next to nothing. Few of the jurors have spoken, and even after hearing those who have we still don't know all that much about the specifics of how they deliberated. I don't see how anybody can criticize the logic and methods used by this jury if we don't even know what those are.

Instead, snippets of what a couple jurors have said have been applied to the whole jury and have been analyzed from the point of view of pro-presecution trial watchers. None of that tells me nything about the quality of the logic the jurors used.
 
MarthaM said:
I understand what you're trying to say, but assumptions about the process that this jury used are being made based on next to nothing. Few of the jurors have spoken, and even after hearing those who have we still don't know all that much about the specifics of how they deliberated. I don't see how anybody can criticize the logic and methods used by this jury if we don't even know what those are.

Instead, snippets of what a couple jurors have said have been applied to the whole jury and have been analyzed from the point of view of pro-presecution trial watchers. None of that tells me nything about the quality of the logic the jurors used.
Click to expand...

Well since the jurors who spoke pretty much summed up that they were all in agreement, except for those few, the belief can be held that those who came forward were the leaders and the rest just followed along. The rest of the juror's silence speaks for itself. Once their names are released I'm sure some of them will be coaxed out of hiding and it would be very interesting to hear their side. I think they are pretty safe now from getting jumped on. jmo
 
MarthaM said:
I understand what you're trying to say, but assumptions about the process that this jury used are being made based on next to nothing. Few of the jurors have spoken, and even after hearing those who have we still don't know all that much about the specifics of how they deliberated. I don't see how anybody can criticize the logic and methods used by this jury if we don't even know what those are.

Instead, snippets of what a couple jurors have said have been applied to the whole jury and have been analyzed from the point of view of pro-presecution trial watchers. None of that tells me nything about the quality of the logic the jurors used.
Click to expand...



Well here's where logic starts and then I suppose you will ask for a definition of logic. Let's take two juries - one that deliberated for 10 hours, less three meal breaks and at least two coffee breaks - so deliberated for five hours,asked no questions, asked for no testimony to be read back and looked at no evidence, and then another jury that deliberated for seven days, asked for testimony readbacks, many pieces of evidence and had several questions for the Judge regarding the various charges. One jury came back with a verdict and several members who testified made statements that their verdict didn't mean she wasn't guilty of something, and they considered the death penalty, among other statements, and the other jury came back and said they had many heated discussions, a number of votes, and all members were satisfied with their decision.

Which jury deliberated? Which jury had their decisions made without any discussions? Which jury do you want deciding your fate?
 
wonders said:
Okay. I've got to say. What if the jury felt sorry for the bumbling, stumbling JB and that's the reason they let the tiny little girl go to her freedom.
Click to expand...

So they felt sorry for Casey's lawyer and that trumped the disturbing death of a two year old? I'm sorry, but that is just lame. That is not a good reason to ever acquit anyone. If they made their decision based on that, they are a worse jury than I ever imagined. It is reprehensible if they made a decision because they felt sorry for Casey for having a bad lawyer!
 
MsMacGyver said:
I just read that it had been over 20 years since Orange County had sequestered a jury for the duration of a trial. It was Judge P's decision to sequester through the whole trial, they do have the option to sequester only the deliberations. Article said it can be emotionally and personally taxing to take jurors away from their support system. They can experience post traumatic stress disorder, particulary a trial with gruesome evidence.
They are told where they can go, what they read, watch on TV, when they can talk to family.
Click to expand...

Oh my, sounds very much like incarceration, deprivation of freedom. Which makes any person more susceptible to the DT brainwashing techniques.

That said, individual opinions are difficult to classify as either superior or inferior IMO by another party. Just because an opinion is in the minority does not make it inferior. The analogy of the flat earth is a good example.
Besides individual opinions can change over time as more information becomes available.
 
logicalgirl said:
You and I must have read a different set of jury instructions. I've giving them the benefit of the doubt as to why they did not review each piece of evidence and the testimony of each witness before coming to a decision. If you say they did clearly understand the instructions then I am back to being mystified as to why they did not participate in this trial at all.
Click to expand...

I agree. It is so clear by the comments the juror's made that they did not understand reasonable doubt and/or the jury instructions.

It is also clear that although Judge Perry didn't mean to, he gave them the message of rush, rush. They worked through a major holiday, on weekends.
He set the tone and they were already antsy to get out of there.

And third, the prosecution didn't take the opportunity to explain reasonable doubt as they should have. I think they assumed what can not be assumed, that everyone understands how the legal system works.

JMO.
 
bayouland said:
I agree. It is so clear by the comments the juror's made that they did not understand reasonable doubt and/or the jury instructions.

It is also clear that although Judge Perry didn't mean to, he gave them the message of rush, rush. They worked through a major holiday, on weekends.
He set the tone and they were already antsy to get out of there.And third, the prosecution didn't take the opportunity to explain reasonable doubt as they should have. I think they assumed what can not be assumed, that everyone understands how the legal system works.

JMO.
Click to expand...


bbm

imo
 
LambChop said:
Didn't CM have a chart regarding "reasonable doubt"?
Click to expand...

Not sure but I recall a bunch of charts and JB and CM kept hammering home the fact that the prosecution gets the last shot, please don't forget what we told you.....we are the underdogs.....we have less money that the State......less everything.....on and on and on. The whole gammet of the sympathy card.

They must have spent alot of time on visuals for closing and they spoke on a level that could be easily understood. I think LF did those visuals and perhaps that was another recommendation by the jury consultant. Give THIS jury "pablum" cause they can't handle the complicated "grown up food". If you focus on what they understand, they will ignore what they don't understand.
JMO.
 
askfornina said:
YES! http://kendrickbrixblog.files.wordp...en-of-proof-0703_rdax_432x480.jpg?w=432&h=480

i have said before that i think this is the exact moment the case was won. i am VERY surprised the prosecution did not object to this chart or make a counterchart. the outcome of the trial could have been very different imo.
Click to expand...

It certainly seems to have affected the jurors' understanding of reasonable doubt ... why it wasn't objected to puzzles me ... I thought the judge was the only one allowed to explain the definition of reasonable doubt and that neither side was allowed to because of bias ...

Probably a question for the lawyers thread but I thought the judge was the one who had the last say on jury instructions and that he accepted input from both sides as to what they wanted it to be ...

Was I imagining that ??
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 180 more.
Total: 3,101 (members: 181, guests: 2,920)

Online statistics

Members online
181
Guests online
2,920
Total visitors
3,101
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,502
Messages
17,970,045
Members
228,788
Latest member
Soccergirl500
Back
Top