printWhat a class act is Florida’s Assistant state attorney Jeff Ashton. What magnificent closing arguments he delivered in the case of the through-and-through sociopath, Casey Anthony. What a stellar presentation of evidence, rebuttal of the defense’s pie-in-the-sky’s clashing theories of the crime, and slap shod, ad hoc, invent-as-you-go narrative.
Ashton etched in evidence an identikit of the classic sociopath. Casey Anthony had never told the truth in her short life; had never done a day’s work in her life, and expected constant gratification and thrills at every turn. It’s a great shame that a man with as rigorous a mind as Ashton’s is retiring. I don’t blame him. Reason and reality, increasingly, will be lost on younger juries, who now inhabit a parallel, electronic universe where idiocy is normalcy.
One criticism of Ashton: His slurping of bottled water was annoying; he ought to have been supplied with glasses of water for his hard work.
Another is his theory of the day of the crime. It was well-done, but a little narrow for the morons in the jury box to grasp. Mommy dearest departed with her daughter, who was never again seen alive. It is, however, possible, even likely, that this wanton woman, a sociopath—who kept telling her parents she had a job, a babysitter, but had neither and was lying and stealing to keep herself in the loop of club life—lost it with the child, and climbed into her in a fit of rage.
The murder of Caylee Anthony was no accident, but it could have been committed in an unplanned manner too. Casey is clever, but she is also a bitch in rage (and in-heat). The child was probably spirited and willful, and this woman (now letting down her hair, primping and preening as though on a red carpet) had had enough of her child’s willfulness, and of the responsibility her (pretty liberal) parents attempted to foist on their difficult daughter.
“I have never been able to figure out why someone would cover up an accident by putting three pieces of duct tape over the nose and mouth of a child and then dumping him in a swamp. When children die of accidents, people call for help; that’s how it works in the real world, not in fiction.” (Ashton on CNN)
Rather than do the job with which they were entrusted, and deduce a logical sequence of events from the powerful evidence provided by the prosecution, the Millennial moron juror interviewed took elements of the profile and the evidence as discrete, atomistic items rejecting her duty to apply some deductive thinking. As I’ve said, short of a YouTube clip, nothing would have convinced these clods of the Anthony woman’s guilt.
Casey’s victory is about “winning”… in the Age of the Idiot.
[I can’t find transcripts of Closing. Can anyone send these?]
UPDATE I: I give your Dean Eckstadt, alternate juror. He instantiates most everything I said about the Millennials, some of who sat on this case. “Like, from the pictures, she seemed a good mother to me. Like she’s innocent. Like, it is what it is.”
I called this justice in the age of YouTube and I told you that there is something deformed about many younger Americans’ mindset and mentality, some of whom debuted on the jury. I’ve witnessed it in the young people with whom I am forced to deal in my interactions—narcissistic, informal, disrespectful to their elders and betters; they conflate how they feel with how things should work, they are the center of the universe, lazy, often incompetent, slow, can’t follow any logical, sequence or algorithm, conflate the personal and the professional. On and on. In short, Dean Eckstadt.
Behold another such specimen: Russel Heuckler. Not as young but as limited.
UPDATE II (July 11): “In Florida, there are two possible penalties for first-degree murder — life in prison without parole or the death penalty.” Also, as I understand it, there are two phases to a trial. The other, highly opinionated, young female juror doing the rounds, indicated that what weighed on her ability to deliberate was the fact that the prosecution had sought the death penalty. She was, however, prohibited from judging the evidence with the recommended penalty in mind. Moreover, the jury did not have to recommend the death penalty. When the sentencing phase commenced, they could have recommended life in prison. Not unexpectedly, Mike Huckabee was not apprised of this distinction. The man is a simpleton. Always has been.
In any event, the jurors currently proudly touting their exquisite sensitivity had flouted the Judge’s instructions in the matter of distinguishing the deliberation from the penalty phase of a trial. To these simple, Millennial minds, everything was enmeshed. And, of course, there was no footage of the act…
UPDATE III (July 11): And Greta keeps a straight face. I give you the YouTube youth vote on Jury Duty.
Logic is hardly used by most people as I have found repeatedly. In fact, when I talk about the complete lack of due process on the “guilt” of Bin Laden (I do not doubt his guilt but would have liked to have the specifics established), I get a big “don’t care” back. I guess Trial By Jury in general requires too much intelligence to occur in America these days.
Well, A.J. Dershowitz sez “the system worked”, and that’s good enuf for me. The murderer goes free, and lawyerman goes to the bank. Yep. AJ’s done that a few timz….
Ilana, what is the definition of “peers” referred to in the US law regarding “a jury of one’s peers”.
Modern juries will not convict if they know or believe that the death sentence will be required. New Mexico made it a law that the death sentence was mandatory for a policeman’s murder. In one case the DA played the tape of the police officer begging his killer not to kill him before the killer shot him (Sound of the shot was also on the tape I think.)The Jury either gave him a verdict of ‘not guilty’ or ‘involuntary manslaughter.’ It was years ago and I had already left the state anyway; but, the newspaper was clear, the jury would not kill. The death penalty is dead in Europe and most of the US, plus she is such a sweet looking thing.
I agree that the decision was a travesty. However, I strongly support the “enmeshing” of probable sentencing and the actual guilt. Their separation is divorced from a Bayesian application of rationality and probability in the real world. A decent application of Bayesianism would be for the state to reform the law to connect the strength of the evidence with the possible penalties.
Yes, good idea, contemplationist. I’ve had that thought a few times. Except that, in my system, the linking of evidence quality with penalty would be…automatic. This jury-rigging by lawyers is way, way out of hand. As to these particular jurors, Ilana on “Millennials” is a bullseye. Everytime I pick a fare at UCSB, one gets in the cab….somebody + something cystallized their brains: Teachers Unions plus MSM. A lot of meth too….
This stupification of juries is due in part to the self-congratulatory attitude of the higher IQ classes in escaping jury duty.
Justice is an essential component of any civilized society and when the civilized opt out…well, we get what we deserve.
We have wrought that which we endure…
Juries are often selected for their emotionality. When my friend (and fellow Millenial) was called for jury duty, she was dismissed when they discovered she was a CPA. While anecdotal, many of her coworkers related similar experiences.
I asked about the definition of “peers” because, to wit, the lady seemed, in fact, to tried by a jury of her (intellectual) peers.