Dawn Goddard · @MsWingz

19th Jul 2011 from Twitlonger

@MarkEiglarsh #HLN #caseyanthony #DrDrew #NancyGrace Okay. You want to make a buck just like the next guy. I get it. You don't want to sit there holding your breath, waiting and hoping you won't be the last one picked for teams. So you give the guy signing the front of the check what s/he wants.

C'mon, Mark? Don't you think that it's about time for SOMEone to #SuckItUp, be the grown-up, take the higher ground for a (phenomenal, refreshing) change and EXAMPLE moving forward with life in the #realworld?

Did I, once again, make a mistake thinking you were an intelligent, engaging, refreshingly sardonic commentator who brought a refreshing diversion from the usual stiff-necked, mundane guest attorney/experts who grace us with their presence as is the norm.

Someone needs to man-up, tell Nancy Grace to shut up. People need to realize that now is probably one of the most exemplary set of circumstances to show the world that our Constitution does work.

ONLY the jurors that swore an oath can know why they did not convict Casey Anthony of (any form of) murder. Not attorneys schooled in law, not being armchair quarterbacks calling the shots, not operating from a position of emotion. Someone needs to assuage the ignition of incendiary judgement. Someone needs to lead the proclamation of thankfulness for our system of justice.

I firmly believe that this ordinary group of people took their job seriously and to heart. They faced their obligation of being fair and impartial - to begin their deliberations with the FACT that this person is INNOCENT. Now, to the prosecutors say, "Prove her guilty."

The jury then take their life experience and common sense, apply it to a situation that is unfamiliar, confusing and extraordinarily complex in method and circumstance. They are burdened with the task of committing a very young woman to either death, or life. The term "reasonable doubt" rings in their ears for weeks. They have to be educated toward the Law's meaning: not their own preconceived notions that we often hear described with flippant disregard.

Jurors on this trial certainly were not vying for royalty in a popularity contest. None were clueless to the enormity of media exposure. My "common sense" guess is that they made a list of questions, added that to evidence and testimony. They tried to answer them, and could not equate guilt beyond (the legal terminology of ) reasonable doubt.

Suffice it to say, I would hope that if ever my liberty were threatened, I would want a group of people to take absolutely ev-er-y-thing available to make their determination. Now, please, won't someone out there make a genuine, concerted effort to guide people who are feeling angry, sad, full of emotion and energy to channel those emotions in a positive, healthy and productive cause?

Dear Mark, et al:

Perhaps, if you find yourselves incapable of help, please, if just this once, will you not be a hindrance?


• This brilliant piece of thoughtful commentary
(painstakingly index-finger typed on an iTouch)
(c)Dawn Goddard, 19 July 2011
posted on Twitter via

Reply · Report Post