Constantly Reaching Absurdity

Poetry lovers will recognize the title of this blog article isn't exactly the one used by Lawrence Ferlinghetti, but in this instance it's to call attention to the absolutely absurd behavior of the prosecutors in the Anthony case -- they intend to file suit to make Casey Anthony pay for the investigation and trial.  You can read about this nonsense here.

In civil suits it's customary for the losing side to have to pay for the court costs of the winning side.  It's that way in part to prevent a good measure of frivolous suits.  Using that long-standing practice, the State of Florida should have to pay for all of Anthony's legal costs, including the experts who had to be consulted.

But instead the prosecutors, who can't admit they simply didn't have a case against Anthony, are trying to punish her in spite of her acquittal.  So they are going to spend more of the State's money hounding that woman.  Isn't that throwing good money after bad?  If they do take it to trial and lose, perhaps the cost of both trials should be taken out of the paychecks of these nincompoops.

Filing deadline extended to September 30, 2011

PEOPLE v. PETERSON (SCOTT)

Case: S132449, Supreme Court of California

Date (YYYY-MM-DD):                     2011-07-28

Event Description:                           Extension of time granted

Notes: 

On application of appellant and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file appellant's opening brief is extended to and including September 30, 2011. 

Correction

The last extension was only for 2 months -- deadline of May 31 was extended to August 1 -- not 3 months as I stated in the previous article.

Another filing extension request

I just noticed this on the Appellate Court's docket for Scott's case.  I assume this will be another 3 month extension, thus extending the deadline to November 1.  I will check daily for approval/disapproval of this extension and let everyone know what the new deadline is.  In case someone doesn't know, the link to the Appellate site is in the right column under Links to Related Sites.

07/25/2011

Request for extension of time filed

to file appellant's opening brief (4th request)

Can't prove innocence or guilt!

Here is a link to another juror interview, Jennifer Ford, Juror #3, and the basic message Ford leaves is "How can you punish someone if you don't know what they did?"  She said repeatedly that she didn't know that Casey was innocent, but the State did not prove she was guilty, and whatever bad behavior Casey exhibited, it is not evidence of guilt.  Ford also said that George did not help the State's case, and at one point she said he was dishonest.

Nancy Grace predicted that if any jurors speak out, they will do so only in delicately placed situations and will be given only soft-ball questions.  No they haven't been the kind of hateful pounding-on-the-table drills that drive people to suicide, so maybe that is what Grace meant by soft-ball questions.

I really feel for jurors in these high profile cases where they don't have solid evidence one way or another -- they truly can't determine if the person is guilty or innocent.  But in these situations, the Law and moral justice demands that they acquit.  For doing that, this jury has my utmost respect.

Caylee's Law

Several states are attempting to pass versions of "Caylee's Law," which makes it a felony to not report the disappearance or death of a child.  On the surface, the claim is to protect children and to better enable law enforcement to find a missing child and/or determine cause of death.  In reality, it's an attempt to punish someone a jury has acquitted.

If Scott Peterson had been acquitted, I imagine there would have been a move to make going fishing on Christmas Eve a felony, or leaving a 7 1/2 month pregnant wife home alone to take care of herself.  Or perhaps it should be a felony not to advise the in-laws when you buy a boat.  And of course, why not make adultery a felony?  I'm sure those are some of the reactions that would have resulted from the public condemnation of an acquittal.  As it was, we did get Conner's law, which was a totally unnecessary law in Conner's case but it did make politicians feel like they were doing something useful.

I'll not be surprised if someone suggests professional juries made up of people like Nancy Grace who know how to put circumstantial evidence together, no matter how irrelevant it is, to get that conviction.  I'm sure she'd readily accept an appointment as Secretary of Juries, with her cabinet-level agency responsible for appointing jurors who now how to understand evidence.  No more idiots who think the earth is flat serving on juries anywhere in America.  No sirree.

But I think what the American public wants is to simply do away with the trial -- after all, if the cops say the person is guilty, who are we to doubt?  We'd only need Judges to rubber-stamp warrants and subpoenas -- the cops can do all the rest.  Or maybe we'd still require them to have a DA sign off on their conclusion; after all, that would be a lot of layoffs, with all those defense attorneys being put out of work to add all the DA's to the unemployment numbers might not be a good idea getting this close to the election.

And no appeals.  God forbid anyone question the conclusion of a cop confirmed by a DA.  Besides, without appeals, no one would ever know they made a mistake.  No mistakes -- that would certainly promote faith in our justice system.

So, let's revise the system by totally doing away with not only juries but all trials, defense attorneys (such a bunch of scumbags, anyway), and appeals.

The Anthony Jury Foreman speaks about suspicions of George

I had the same reaction when I watched George on the witness stand -- he just wasn't credible to me.  I don't know what his involvement was, or if his demeanor was caused by something totally unrelated to Caylee's death, but he definitely sent out some bad vibes.

Greta's interview with the Jury foreman