Wednesday, July 6, 2011
The murderer of a two year old girl will walk the streets soon because the legal system has failed to set standards for reasonable doubt. The basis of juror selection was founded eons ago when it was assumed that the average juror would have an IQ higher than a rock and more than two brain cells that fired simultaneously Evidently reasonable doubt can only be negated to some, if the actual event takes place in the courtroom while the jury is seated face forward, fully alert after 8 hours of uninterrupted sleep.
As one alternate juror stated ( see picture above), The prosecution never established a motive. The only person who could elaborate more on the motive was the one you failed to convict or perhaps Susan Smith in South Carolina because these women are definitely sisters of the heart. He also stated that the cause of death was never determined. Maybe because the child’s body was left in a swamp to rot or be devoured by alligators, but then again all grieving parents toss their children’s bodies away after an accident. Did you miss the part where she didn’t testify in her own defense? I am aware it is her right, I am also cognizant of the fact that it is my right to draw certain conclusions from this. DUH!
I have listened to the people who have stated that since a jury of her peers acquitted Ms. Anthony that the issue should be dropped. I beg to differ, if the jurors stand firm in their beliefs that they arrived at the right decision and justice prevailed, why hide? Stand your moral ground and face your detractors. Convince me you are not a moron who wants to get back to your summer fun, or who slept through most of the trial. Let me know that you have justifiable and plausible reasons for your verdict other than you were fighting the power that wants to keep you down or God forbid, that you empathized with her plight. Give me some glimmer of justification for what you did and allowed to go unpunished.
There was one winner in this debacle.