I am going to go there and question what the heck the Casey Anthony jury were doing while days of damaging testimony and evidence was presented to them? Before you boo and hiss me, please hear the Pie Hole out.
I keep hearing the jury tell in interviews that they “kept to the facts” when making the final decision. There were a few pieces of key evidence that were pretty factual that somehow they seem to not take those as facts. I have been doing some serious thinking on both of the Casey Anthony case and the Scott Peterson case. Even though the cases were different in nature, the evidence and crime seem to have a lot in common, and yet the verdicts were polar opposites. How is that possible? Here are some observations I came up with.
Cadaver Dogs:
Anthony: Cadaver dogs hitting on the trunk of the car after three separate people at three separate times reported to authorities that the trunk smelled of death. They also hit on areas within the Anthony’s backyard.
Peterson: Cadaver dogs did a mild hit on the boat.
Hair Samples:
Anthony: One hair sample was found in the trunk of the car.
Peterson: One hair sample was found on a pair of needle nose plies in the boat.
Lying:
Anthony: Lied to everyone including authorities and allowed a huge search to go underway costing organizations nd the state hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Peterson: Lied to everyone including authorities and allowed a huge search to go underway costing organization and the state hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Behavior Post Crime:
Anthony: Partying, tattoo, stealing checks from friends, lying shopping, having lots of sex and texting or calling anyone and everyone she knew. Hard evidence shows that behavior.
Peterson: Maintaining relationship with mistress, Amber Frey – even called Amber from a vigil service saying he was in Paris.
Ditching Cars:
Anthony: Ditched her car.
Peterson: Sold his car.
Recovered Bodies:
Anthony: Found months after the crime . Could not pinpoint time of death or cause of death in an area Casey could be linked to.
Peterson: Found months after the crime. Could not pinpoint time of death or cause of death in an area Peterson could be linked to.
Reporting the “Kidnapping”
Anthony: Not reporting your kid missing for 31 days and having hard evidence to proof she was parting like a wild banchie during that time.
Peterson: Scott Patterson reported it right away when he got home from his fishing trip.
Motive:
Anthony: Feeling trapped in her life. Wanted to do her own thing – behaviors screamed this!
Peterson: Felling trapped in his life. Wanted to do his own thing – behaviors screamed this!
Additional “facts” of the Casey Anthony case that is strong circumstantial evidence:
- The FBI testifying that traces of chloroform were found in the trunk post the evidence that there were 87 searches on chloroform and neck breaking.
- Grandma Cindy LYING on the stand saying that she did the searches and was busted a few days later.
- The opening statements from Jose Baez, that George and Lee Anthony sexually abused her starting at the age of 8 when this was the first time in 3 years anyone heard that accusation AND there is jailhouse video of Casey telling her dad that, “He will always be her buddy and the she loved him”.
- The baby found wrapped in her blanket from home, in plastic bags with duck tape (that matched the same tape recovered from the home) in an area where the Anthony family has buried their family pets only a 2 minute walk from their house.
- Sending the authorities on wild goose chases that would be completely debunked in five minutes.
- Accusing some random stranger of kidnapping your kid.
Jury:
Anthony: From a state that does not know how to count votes or have a problem with capital punishment.
Peterson: From a state that just does not know how to vote and does not like capital punishment.
Bottom line is, this was one of the most insane saddest verdicts (outside of OJ – which I think this state learned from) I have ever heard. The “justifications” the jury gives the press and American people, can’t convince me otherwise. I hold them accountable for her walking free and for them NOT giving at least a child abuse and manslaughter charge. When they went into deliberate two jury members wanted capital and half wanted manslaughter. No one asked for additional evidence to review and they only deliberated for 11 hours. Some member or members of the jury were as convincing as Jose Baez in that deliberation room . . .
Being Accountable: Where Does the Line Start or End?
Posted in blog, Blogger, Current Events, News, Politics, Soapbox, Social Issues, Uncategorized, tagged conservatives, federal funding, James O'Keefe, Juan Williams, liberals, NPR, racial comments, Ron Schiller, tax dolalrs, Tea Party, Vivian Schiller on March 10, 2011| 4 Comments »
This morning my neighbor and I went on our walk and the subject of NPR’s big brouhaha of management shake down came up. To bring up to speed about the current event, NPR fired contributing journalist Juan Williams for saying he was uncomfortable boarding a plane with a Muslim on it, when he was on FOX news. James O’Keefe, a conservative activist, recently did an undercover sting on one of the execs, Schiller, no relation to the CEO Vivian Schiller, said that the tea party are racists Christian fanatics and that NPR does not really need the federal funding it gets from the feds. Vivian Schiller stepped down because the board pretty much told her either she was fired or she had to resign and executive Ron Schiller was fired.
First off did they not fire Juan Williams for “racist” comments on another network? Isn’t it what is good for the goose is good for the gander? I really don’t care what was said about the tea party or Juan’s issue with getting on a plane with Muslims. What I care about, and what I think NPR cared about, was Ron Schiller getting caught with his pants down on tape saying that NPR does not need federal funding. He is one of the faces of NPR and even if he believes that, he is accountable to the board of directors and those that sign his paycheck to have and edit button on his pie hole, he just had a huge wake up call. I feel NPR did the right thing.
Now, let’s get real here. Anyone that listens to NPR on a daily basis, knows that NPR leans more to the social left so being targeted by a conservative activists because it is funded by the tax payers on where they really stand on issues is not suprising and they should know that as well.
I don’t like shady operations, I like everything out on the table and seeing everyone’s cards. However we live in a society where both sides of the political spectrum do pretty outrageous things to prove or make a point and the conservative activist group found their golden nugget of opportunity and now we are dealing with the emotional fall out of that act.
I see that many are outraged that NPR fired these two executives and a journalist for saying and doing things that are not “socially/politically correct”. I say good for NPR. These people were representatives for NPR and getting paid very well to be that face of NPR and there should be consequences to be in that role stating extreme opinions and speaking off the record about financial standings of that company. Luckily for NPR President Obama is going to protect its funding despite this hiccup of diarrhea of the executive pie hole. Yet, I do ask the question if NPR can really afford to be on the air without the federal dollars, then why are we not taking the money back and applying it to other areas of need? Just a thought to ponder on.
The question I have for you fellow bloggers is the what was asked me today. Where is the line crossed when you are accountable of what you say and do even if it is off the record and in a casual environment?
My answer is that if you have a level of authority or a face of a “thing” you are accountable for everything you say and do on and off the record. You are being compensated accordingly to be that face and it is a 24 hour job. If you don’t want that responsibility, then step down. I think the consequences that NPR handed out were fair.
Read Full Post »