Stephen Bolling 20 hours ago

·The jurors showed extremely poor judgement. There's an on-going joke about not trusting jurors so stupid they can't get out of jury duty. Much of this has to do with the way juries are selected. Attorneys are looking for people who don't follow the news (specifically their case), who are poor at analysis (haven't formed opinions on anything), and are not leaders (they want jurors they can manipulated). So just by being selected we are assured of a relatively dim witted group. That's how this jury was selected. These are people we wouldn't trust to make judgements in your own life with regards to our health, finances or safety. Any reasonable person would not want a nurse, an accountant or a bus driver that served on this jury. This is a jury who couldn't understand the simple difference between "reasonable doubt" and one-in-a-billion-chance of being innocent. This is the lion and the chicken case. A lion and chicken are placed in a small empty room with only one door. Later, only the lion is found in the room. There are chicken feathers all around the lion's mouth. You are asked to analyze the situation and determine if the lion killed the chicken. (Its not illegal for lions to eat chickens so don't worry, nothing will happen to the lion). This jury would claim the feathers were circumstantial and that as long as there were no cameras in the room no one can actually prove the lion killed the chicken. To them, if it wasn't filmed for You Tube it never happened. Is it possible the chicken died first and then eaten? Possible, but not likely. Defense attorneys want jurors who are incapable of making logical conclusions.

Next we have the defense team. They are smart people. They studied the evidence. All of it. That means they know...THEY KNOW...Casey Anthony killed her child. They know she killed her child but their job is to get a not guilty judgment. Did they take the case because everyone is entitled to a defense or for fame and fortune? Doesn't matter, either way their work ethic included defending someone who murdered their own child. Someone who allowed a search team to fly in and do an exhaustive search for a body the mother knew was already dead. Who defends someone like that? Law was maintained in the courtroom, ethics was not. Someone asked me wouldn't I want them as my team? My answer is only if I were guilty. Their expertise is defending people who are guilty. Guilty people demonstrate poor ethics. If I wasn't guilty then I would want someone who's expertise is defending people who are innocent. I don't advocate any person who helps the guilty. I prefer to advocate those that help the innocent, like Caylee Anthony. Someone who was bound and gagged and killed. What type of person would turn their back on justice for Caylee Anthony for their own personal gain professionally and financially? With that said, I wouldn't want to go to a law school that bred their brand of ethics. We the people have the right to pass judgement, legally, financially, not as vigilantes acting out with physical violence, but we have the right not to use businesses and services we do not trust because of their employees and we have the right not to support colleges if we don't trust their graduates.

Regarding Casey Anthony, fate will have a way of catching up to her. Someone capable of killing their own child just so they could party will do it again. My hope is that she won't be successful next time around. And it looks like Casey's father is showing some remorse and guilt. It's possible he might talk and tell the truth. An "If Casey Killed Kaylee" book should be expected. And though there are people commenting here that believe her actions were okay, regardless of what those actions were, because anything is fair as long as they don't catch you in the act, plus babies shouldn't get in the way of one's right to party, reasonably knowledgable people will continue to fight for justice, legally, and ethically.