re : Casey & Kalyn ( ? ) Anthony
Despite The Astonishing Hand Wringing in The Few Days after The Surprising Verdict of Not Guilty, Very little Consideration has been Given to Some of The Most Vexing Questions. ( ? )
What is The Deal with The Google Searches for Chloroform?
Why Didn’t Casey’s Mother or Father or Brother Report Kalyn Missing?
It seems clear to me that there is A Larger Conspiracy in That Household.
Everyone in that home knew what happened to Kalyn, And they Conspired to Cover it Up.
If it was an Accident, Why cover it up?
It seems much more reasonable that someone in The Family Murdered Kalyn,
But why would The Other Members of The Family Go Along with The CoverUp.
What was The Motive for The Murder?
How could they have believed that No One Else would notice Kalyn Missing?
Why did her Mother Suddenly Report Her Missing?
What is The Larger Narrative?
Why is The Media Ignoring this Larger Narrative?
It seems to me that in Light of A Conspiracy Theory,
The Family would Support Casey, and Casey would support her Family after her Arrest, But after a time, Casey Decided that The Truth would be more Beneficial to Her Situation.
When Casey decided to Tell The Truth, She would have to Translate The Larger Narrative into a Believable Story, And in doing so, She decided to Simplify A Larger Narrative which may be Insanely Complicated that Spanned Her Entire Life & The Lives of Her Family Members.
Then after you simplify one element and try to make it Fit with The Other Simplified Elements, you’d have to continuously bend & twist your story to get everything to fit makes it more & more disingenuous & contrived.
If Casey ever did want to ‘Back Up’ and Start The Simplified Narrative over again, it would only make it all worse, or if she decided to try and reveal The Larger Narrative, There is no way that she could get all The Details Right so that it would make a believable Story, because her understanding would be only one perspective with numerous other actor’s views & motivations unknown to her.
The Investigators would have to have first conceded that there was A Larger Narrative, But The Police are always looking for The Simple Murder, Not A College Graduate Thesis in The Complexities of Human Behaviour.
Plus; Even if this Larger Narrative were Fully Disclosed, How could they ever present it to A Jury to Get any kind of reasonable Conviction?
i have heard of other cases like this, Where a Crime involves a little extra Complexity, A Few Extra Details that are NonSensical or In any Sense Sensible, The Prosecutors &/or Judges simply throw The Case Out rather than think to hard about something that will only cause UnNecessary Grief & Headaches.
As a Side Issue :
Hate Jury Duty...?
i have an idea for Restructuring The Judicial System, So that all the rights & responsibilities of the Accused & Accusers will be preserved, But that Citizens will be lining up to be on Juries, Instead of shunning them.
The first & most elemental assumption that i'm making about the functionality of a legal trial, is that it consists of an logical & reasonable argument of guilt by The Prosecutor, which is rebutted by The Defense Attorney.
What this Trial is Not; Is a Theatrical Performance.
The New & Improved Structure that i am proposing, May seem even more Theatrical than the current structure, but it is intended to provide more & clearer information in a more confined & well regulated format.
The New Structure is simply This:
All the principles of the case; Accused, Prosecutor, Defense, Judge, Witnesses & Various Experts conduct the trial in a manner very reminiscent of a conventional trial, With the tiny exception that instead of presenting it to A Live Jury; It is simply made into a full & complete Video Presentation.
What are the advantages to this:
* All parties have complete control of what the final presentation will consist of, disallowing or sharply reducing, the possibility of an appeal by either side.
* This complete control means that there will be No unexpected outbursts, irrelevant comments, pointless delays, & all other wearisome & tedious content for The Jury to Endure. / It may be argued that on various occasions, Either side of the debate would like to introduce what may appear to an unexpected outburst, but such theatrics will now have to be carefully argued at a meta-level with all concerned parties for their inclusion.
* Expert Witnesses may be Video Conferenced from Distant Locations, or Pre-Recorded Explanations of Evidentiary Content may be inserted seamlessly into the final Presentation.
* Detailed Examinations of The Crime Scene may be included with fancy Graphics & detailed computer simulations. / These sorts of things are present in current legal proceedings, but only in the most contrived & often clumsy manner.
* These Video Presentation Arguments will be created by professionals working with all interested parties to make a final, professional looking product that will contain all relevant information, disallow irrelevant information and be pleasing & engaging to watch.
* The Jury may view the entire Presentation or any subsection repeatedly.
* The amount of time that The Jury would have to commit to the Trial may be as little as a single afternoon. / Or conceivably; They could view The Presentation from home and deliberate with other jury members within a Secured Chat Room.
* The Presentation would be available for review by anyone, in it's complete form, for reconsideration, appeal or historical purposes at any later time.
Additional Digression :
For every trial by jury or judge;
The jury or judge could find the accused overwhelmingly innocent,
which would be the other side of The Scottish ‘Not Proved’. ( Also an Option )
When a verdict of Overwhelmingly Innocent is reached;
The jury would then find The Prosecutor guilty of Malfeasance,
And then assess a suitable punishment while all the facts of the trial are still fresh in their minds.
If the accused is found merely innocent;
A Misdemeanor fine could be levied against the prosecutor, at the juries discretion.
More Digressing :
Why i would never serve on A Jury
There are layers & layers of kookiness when it comes to Our Judicial System.
The First & Foremost is that Moral Responsibility, Which is Necessary to be Judged for One's Misbehavior, Requires FreeWill, Which is Logically Impossible.
If This Reasoning; In Support of The Illusion of Freewill is Flawed, Then A System of Justice that prides itself on Logical Thinking & Protocols, Is Flawed for Using this Illusionary Foundation of Reason.
If; Contrary to This : The Judicial System is based on Mere Vengeance, Then it is Unconscionable, And i can not be Party to it.
If Likewise; Freewill is An Illusion, The Very Thinking of it as an Illusion, is an Illusion as Well, Since this Reasoning does not Exist. It is merely a long chain of Cause & Effect, Perpetrated on ElectroChemical Processes within The Brain, Each Step, Decided by The Fundamental Rules of Electrons, Billions or More, years ago.
But if this is True, As Well— Then All The Charades of The Judicial System are not performed out of Mischievious Ignorance or Malfeasance; But because all of it's actions were likewise decided Billions, or More, Years ago at a point in The Fabric of Reality when Randomality gave way to Determinism.
If There is No Freewill; Then The Judicial System is Grossly Unfair to The Robots it Persecutes.
Or— If There is Freewill; While our Foundations of Logic clearly refute this Condition, Then This Same Foundation of Logic which The Judicial System is Based on, Or Not, Is Deeply Flawed and is Grossly Unfair to The Fallen, Wingless Angels that were Raised in a Culture that is Devoid of A Rational System of Thought to Teach Them Moral Righteousness.
More of The Same :
More Evidence that Logic is Bunk!
In the One Venue in which Logic & Reasoning really should have been actively codified to exclude all Irrational Thinking...
Has Not Done So.
You might want to believe that Prosecutors construct Logical Arguments that Convict Innocent Parakeets, But the very fact that all Preliminary Avenues of Reasoning between The Prosecution & Defense is Terminated with The Assemblage of 12 Ill Educated & Proven Sociopaths to Arbitrarily Decide if The Accused is Guilty or Not.
If it were The Case that Western Civilization had a Viable Fractional Propositional Logical System; The Process would consist of The Police &/or Private Investigators presenting their evidence for someone's guilt to a Municipal Judiciary, Which would then take a Prosecutor from Their List of Authorized Barristers, And if Necessary; A Defense Attorney as well. Then The Prosecutor & The Investigators would go over the evidence And Construct Their Argument. The Defense would Then come along and debate the construction of The Argument, As well as The Assigned Truth Values for All Applicable Variables.
A Independent Judge would then Moderate The Final Fractional Propositional Argument; Which when Finished; Would reveal If The Accused is Agreeably Guilty or Not.
The Actual Value for Acceptable Guilt may Vary from County to County.
The Argument & All Other Particulars would then be posted on The Interweb for All to Examine— And at That Point; A Jury of The Totality would determine if The Prosecution of The Accused Was Fair or Not.
Random Thoughts :
Judged by a Jury of Your Peers
Has there ever been a case in which, or criteria defined, to actually exclude someone from a jury because they are Not a Peer of The accused?