DrCloud

...Except it'll have to wait to leave the station for four more days that originally reported -- the sheriff and the jail people seem to have been challenged by the math computation concerning her incarceration. (Math-challenged people in Central Florida! Could it be?)

There was talk at the hearing yesterday of totting up a bill for various costs that the sheriff incurred (for the search, I suppose); this will be discussed next month. It could be that much of the money that will come her way from books and whatnot (and, Deb, it's sort of too bad that the Vivid deal fell through...) will go to repay those costs. At least we can hope. HPH

dean

They probably ran out of fingers. Central (as well as northwest) Florida is not known as Dumb****istan for no reason.

plantpixie

ralper

I think the solution in cases like this is to give the jury a third choice. They could vote the traditional innocent or guilty but they'd also be able to find the defendant "guilty but not enough proof to convict".

Think about it. With these three choices everyone would be happy. If the defendant is clearly guilty and the jury finds him/her guilty, the system works. If the defendant is innocent and the jury finds him/her innocent the system works. But in a case like this where the jury couldn't convict because there simply wasn't enough evidence to convict, but the public in general really believes the defendant to be guilty, the jury could decide "guilty but not enough evidence to convict" and everyone walks away happy. The defendant is free to go so he's/she's happy, the slimey defense attorneys got their client off so they're happy, the incompetent prosecution got a guilty verdict in spite of his/her incompetence so they're happy, and most important, the general public, and especially slimes like Nancy Grace, who knew the truth all along (even though the jury couldn't find it), got a guilty verdict so they're happy. Once done, and because everyone got their way, there'd be no death threats, no fear by the jury, and no having to go into hiding. And think of the benefit. The defendent, the defendent's family, the prosecution, the defense, the networks and everyone else concerned would be free to write their books, grant their interviews and collect millions of dollars.

It's time we brought the legal system up to date.

(I hope I didn't offend anyone with my tongue in cheek comment. This entire episode has been so absurd that it seems to me that if you don't laugh about it, you have to cry about it.)

ralper

Here is the perfect example of the tragedy of "trial by public opinion".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Frank

jukngene

^^^Rob, I read that entire Wikipedia article. What a tragedy. You are spot on in your statement about trial by public opinion.

PS: Glad to see you posting again!

ralper

Gene,

The story of Leo Frank is quite a story on many levels. Mob rule and the trial by public opinion are very dangerous things.

zdave87

As of 12:10am 07/17/2011 she is a free woman.

dlq04

I would not call her free but after what-ever it was (thousands day or so in jail), she is free to hide from the mob. I totally agree with Rob's last comment "Mob rule and the trial by public opinion are very dangerous things."

dean

Someone had to post the first one, and it might as well be me.

BREAKING NEWS! Casey Anthony places a call to 911 in fear of her life.

(Dispatcher) ”What is your emergency?"

(Casey) “Please help me, I have a bunch of people trying to kill me.”

(Dispather) “Okay ma'am, calm down. What is your name?”

(Casey) “Casey Anthony.”

(Dispatcher) “Okay Miss Anthony, try to stay calm, an officer will be there in 31 days."