eym_sirius

I wonder why it's credit unions and not regular banks - Or is this something that banks have done, as well?

The other day, Mrs. Sirius went to a credit union to conduct banking business and there, in the place of live tellers, was a TV screen with a teller prompting her regarding the transaction. It seemed to be a good strategy to deter robberies, since no self-respecting bank robber would pass a note to a tv screen demanding money. There were loan officers there to deal with customers in person, but those handling money were not physically visible. Has anyone else experienced tellervision?

Besides that, there's no sense pretending that this is a way to keep the judicial system on the straight and narrow. We're talking about only high profile cases - celebrity cases. They should simply make copies for whoever wants to review the case for whatever reason. There's absolutely no reason that people need to see the proceedings in real time! There's also no need to have tv cameras installed in jails so that we can watch inmates in real time. There's no need to have tv cameras linked to dashboard cams so that we can view police stops in real time. If we're looking for transparency i

Judge, let the cameras in and we'll be GLAD to contribute a million bucks to your favorite charity!!

Yes. TV watchers don't get the same instructions that the jurors do. I think that each trial should be videotaped and that each person should be able to pay for a copy of that public record, just as that person is able to pay for public records anywhere. But we're about to get to the point where Nancy Grace types will have the ability to interject their commentary over the court proceedings. For instance: Prosecuting attorney: Where were you, Ms Anthony, on the night of June 25? Nancy Grace (shouting) : PROBABLY WHORING AROUND!!! Ms. Anthony : I was sleeping Nancy Grace

Politicians talking about this are NOT talking about what they should be talking about -- the budget and instituting appropriate financial reforms to right the ship. A cargo shift causes a small ship to list toward the starboard side. A sailor, instead of getting to work on moving cargo, is setting out rat traps to catch a single rat aboard. Asked about his priorities, the sailor said, "We're still floatin', aren't we?" And the ship continues to list as it continues floatin'.

Did they run out of amateurs? What? They didn't want George? She may as well get paid for it! They can call it "Casey at the Bats" Or "Joy in Muddville"

You know what would be the capper to this story??? If she named the next child "Caylee"!!!

Hide-A-Key Another strategy is if she only manually locks the door from the outside, using the key. Maybe she has a friend/neighbor who doesn't work and could run a spare key out to her? Rent movies that deal with breaking into cars - Maybe she'll pick up some pointers.

I think that you'd be hard-pressed to find a precedent that backs up your contention. Let's remember the certainty of the O.J. trial. Nobody followed O.J. around. He was back to partying/living it up in no time!

It could just be that they had a good sense of their duty under the law to require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. They did get constant reminders from the judge that people watching their tvs didn't get. I think that the need for the false sense of balance is present irrespective of religious persuasion (or not). As I said before, the non-religious will make parallel statements about the karma train catching up with her. And I don't think that there's anything especially malicious about the karma train, unless a person decides to hijack it to make sure that it makes the st

Have you ever heard christian folk saying "I hope he burns in hell"??? Why do you think that they say that? It's to restore the sense of balance that they perceive exists in the world. There's a measure of delight at the bad guy being punished. It's not a new phenomenon. People used to atten public hangings to get this fix!

I think that the answer can be found in pre-packaged ideology. Good people go to heaven and bad people go to hell. Even the non-religious have their karma reference that indicates that a come-uppance awaits those who do wrong by the other person. Society tends to reinforce those notions, because, for one thing - reality sucks! When things like this happen, there's a visceral reaction rooted in that imaginary sense of balance. To make it right again, the individual wants to do something - anything to restore that sense of balance. Most people are able to say, "She'll get hers one day".

Many religious folk don't only rejoice in their belief that good people go to heaven. They delight in bad people going to hell. It's how the world makes sense to them, that balance. The verdict mean't that this sense of balance (which doesn't exist in reality) can never be made right again! That is until the media gets them to thinking about something else....

I understand. I'm saying that even if the Anthonys had a policy the insurance company will not pay it. Payouts on policies are not automatic. There is an examination of the terms for the purpose of determining compliance. Life insurance policies all have a disclaimer disallowing a policy when the beneficiary caused the death through neglect, wanton disregard, intentional harm, etc. For instance a man whose house burns down and kills his family can't collect on the policy if it can be shown in court that he more than likely (that's the standard in civil court) caused the fire. The insurance

What makes her so different? The media spotlight. I agree with you! The trial of the CENTURY??? Until the next trial of the century, that is.....

I thought about that yesterday - that his "crime" would be the one that got the maximum penalty!

I think that there's a different standard required for the civil courts, one of "preponderance of evidence". The way that preponderance of evidence works is that the terms of the policy state that the individuals collecting on the policy can't have anything to do with the death of the person named in the policy. So, they just don't pay. If the Anthonys sue and it goes to court, the jury would only have to come to a "more likely" conclusion instead of a "reasonable doubt" one. So if the jury thinks that the evidence weighs, in probablility, 51 percent (more likely than not) that C

I agree with you about merit pay based on test scores. There are a couple of glaring problems with merit pay. One has to do with the dreaded "teaching to the test" - in other words, there's the real possibiity that teachers will not teach students how to solve problems and how to learn, but instead how to answer the questions on the test. There's the temptation to beat the system to make the numbers. It doesn't make sense to incentivize teachers to compromise the ethics of their profession. The cheating is definitely a slap in the face of those who work hard to honestly get meaningful

It's a good theory because it takes into account the tape. . The search of "chloroform", the nanny story, lying to investigators, and the lack of remorse still leave nagging doubt. Cindy showed herself to be a liar, too. I think that she decided to defend her daughter against the death penalty and told the complete lie about the pool. That had not been brought up - Caylee drowning. But during the trial, Cindy remembers leaving the pool ladder up. That was one of a string of lies that Cindy told during the trial! Those lies should cast sufficient doubt on ANYTHING Cindy testified to, esp

At the end, with the prosecution's summation, did you see Casey mouthing rebuttals to every prosecution allegation? This may NOT have been a brilliant move on the part of the defense. It may have been Casey Anthony's innovation. Whichever -- I'm here to suggest that mouthing a rebuttal will become the standard for defendants. If this was an invention of the defense team - It was brilliant. If it was an invention by Casey - that would speak to her skillset as a hardened criminal. If it was just something that the defense team had seen elsewhere and they coached Casey to mouth these reb

No, I think you nailed it. It's her sociopathy that provides the referenced disconnect. What MOTHER wouldn't report her child missing? One who had killed the child as a result of pursuing the life-pleasures that she thinks that she deserves more than anything or anybody. She put on the performance of her life, certainly for the purpose of avoiding that which she would think is unthinkable - the rest of her life in jail or being on death row. But there's more. Evidently, she was able to manipulate Cindy (primarily) to get her to lie under oath to save her life. At first the accuser (Cindy)

Accepted, though you probably know I don't take these discussions personally. Hey, you're the best thing to come from Alabama since I-20!

I think that you may not have liked their style, but know that they presented their case in the way that they did in a deliberate way. I know THAT'S what makes you wonder why they would do this or that, but in the end, the strategy WORKED. I think that as the trial was winding down you made a comment that spoke to the possibility of acquittal, while everyone else was saying that Casey was toast. I thought that the defense was brilliant, GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL CASE that they had to overcome. All that they could do was to muddy the waters, introduce alternative theories (when has that EVE

You're correct I think that the manslaughter was felony (aggravated) manslaughter. You're right - that would have been a lesser charge. But I think that it would have included the same circumstances not in evidence to the satisfaction of the jurors.