Oh, the dude's book. Maybe the jury should have read the dude's book. Then they wouldn't have acquitted her of all the charges related to end-user patients. Maybe because all of that was quite overblown anyway.
Once again, just because some dude wrote it down in a book doesn't mean it's a fact. The jury just acquitted her of those charges. Maybe they didn't the read dude's book?
I agree strongly about his attorney. But he didn't end up with a crappy attorney for want of resources: she was an elite defense attorney, suffering (we now know) from serious health defects.
Again: my point isn't that the verdict is correct. It's just that this isn't a great case for prosecution run amok.
Maybe one of the jurors found it unlikely that she visited the page about chloroform 84 times and that subtly affected his or her perception of the prosecution's case.
The author did not punish Heather based on his entirely reasonable suspicions. There's nothing wrong with having a reasonable a priori guilt distribution for a crime, so long as you don't punish people based on weak evidence and you allow for new evidence to update your guilt distribution.
I think this is a great example of a justice system working as intended. The statistical evidence alone likely would not have convicted her, but it could have exonerated or cast doubt on her being the perpetrator. It did not, for reasons which were obvious to the jury.
Except it clearly didn’t work in this case since the jury reached a conclusion that is fundamentally at odds with the conclusion reached by experts worldwide.
I’m baffled by how this is discussed on here as “well, maybe the jury was right”. We know that the jury wasn’t right.
Regardless of whether or not you agree with the verdict, it's pretty clear that the prosecution really botched their case. For their closing arguments they were virtually relying on emotional appeals.
"Edith looks up from a game of solitaire and casually mentions that she actually thinks the murder was committed by the accomplice, who was never found and is not on trial. But since the defendant’s lawyer did such a poor job exonerating him, she concludes, she’s going to deliver a guilty verdict. My jaw drops. No one questions her obviously flawed reasoning, because she’s on their side."
This, for me, was the most terrifying bit in the article. To convict a man of murder, and to send him to life in prison or perhaps to his own death, when you think he's innocent? It shocks me what people are capable of sometimes. But this article doesn't shock me, because I know what people are capable of. Kudos to the author for sticking to his moral compass in the face of adversity.
That's definitely not what the sentencing memoranda and final sentencing order say. I'm going to tend to believe that the judge knows more about which facts were and weren't found at trial over the opinions of message boards, which, as you can see, are repeatedly and blatantly wrong about core details of the case.
You're assuming that the person was rightfully convicted, under an article implying potentially redeeming evidence was overlooked in a case that ended up with a death sentence.
The issue though is that his attorney didn't do her job, to the degree that her didn't-do-her-job-tiveness was actually whatever the equivalent to malpractice is in law. So my point is that with hindsight and far more information, in the light of a far more thorough investigation than either side of the trial did in the first place, there's not enough evidence to rise above reasonable doubt. In my opinion, as an idiot layman spouting off on the internet about shit I know nothing about, obviously.
"Though you have none of the information other than what you read in the article, you feel you know more than the jury? I think not."
As a matter of fact, I do know more than the jury. The judge suppressed key evidence in the case. There were photos of the cops abusing her that were never presented, and a slam-dunk photo of the cop grabbing her from behind that the jury was not permitted see, as well as more video that made it very clear how out aggressive and out of line the police behavior was.
I qualify what I say since I don't have a perfect view, only the bits and pieces of evidence that exist. Based on those I am assuming what is most likely, and you are doing just the same, as that's all any of us can do.
Before people get into heated arguments, remember that this was a high case trial with tons of media input in an attempt to get ratings and neither side was reported without bias.
The jurors who reached their decision know a lot more about the details than people who occasionally read the headlines, so while you're entitled to your opinion, keep it civil please.
I missed out on all but the verdict of the Casey Anthony case. I was busy, and I had simply not heard about the trial. My friends laughed at me for not being in the know.
As a result, I later read the book http://www.amazon.com/Imperfect-Justice-Prosecuting-Casey-An... by a prosecutor in the case and I was amazed—I still couldn't see myself giving her a murder conviction. I could see myself with child neglect, abuse, maybe a lesser manslaughter, but even with a prosecutor's own words he failed to convince me of a murder charge let alone a death penalty case.
I wonder if something similar will happen when I read about this case.
I've been surprised by exactly that. What I'm reading into the trial so far -- and I'm only reading the English summaries, so I'm probably missing out on a lot -- is that TPB aren't really completely owning up to, "He wrote the code, he did the graphics, he did this, we did that..." It almost even sounds like every time the prosecution tries to nail down responsibility for anything, the defendant says, "I only did that a little".
IF that's what's going on, then IF I were the judge or a jury member, I would interpret that as people avoiding responsibility for their actions, which to me would imply that they thought they were guilty of a crime.
I think people are undervaluing this point. Sure, you can say he's probably guilty, but the entire point of a jury trial is to determine that!
"That guy's totally guilty" isn't a basis for any kind of prejudicial action - either you have enough info to try him, or you don't have enough info to hold him on suspicion.
reply