Danielle Keeler

think about it.

Foreshadowing of Casey Anthony:

with 3 comments

We’ve all heard about the recent Casey Anthony trial–if you haven’t, you obviously live under a rock.  For a quick summary: a woman was accused of killing her daughter and acquitted of the charges, served approximately a week in jail for lying to police and walked away.  There have been discussions about how, even if Casey Anthony went on Oprah and confessed to killing her daughter, she cannot be charged.  This is due to the 5th amendment, better known as “double jeopardy”.  This amendment summarily states that an individual cannot be tried twice for the same crime.  There must be a new offense or new evidence presented in order to call a case back to trial.

Recently, this exact event happened with another murder case.

In 2004, Isaac Turnbaugh of Vermont was acquitted of killing his coworker.  However, Turnbaugh recently contacted the police and confessed to the crime.  Why?  Who knows?  Maybe to clear his conscience.  Maybe to see what the reaction would be.  Maybe as a slap in the face to law enforcement.  Maybe he sat on his end, laughing, as the police searched for a loophole in the 5th amendment.

“He could have turned over a video tape of him committing the murder and it wouldn’t change the fact that double jeopardy is attached,” Vermont attorney general William Sorrel told The Huffington Post. “We had our chance. The jury acquitted him and, just in the same way OJ could confess today to his wife’s murder, it wouldn’t affect what could be done to him.” (www.huffingtonpost.com).

This is one of the biggest holes in the American justice system.  I mean, this isn’t even just a hole; this is a huge, gaping gash of stupidity.  Why, for Pete’s sake, couldn’t the fifth amendment allow a new trial in the case of a proven confession?  Obviously you cannot call a second trial for an offhand comment that could be taken as a confession, but when a murderer fucking calls the cops and confesses, why can’t the case return to trial?  I say this needs to go to legislature for revision, because there are any number of cases when it has failed to serve justice, which, after all, is the goal of the American government.  You would think it would have been fixed a long time ago, but maybe this time it will actually get noticed.  Let’s hope.




Written by Danielle Keeler

August 3, 2011 at 10:10 pm

3 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I am not familiar with the law (pls ignore my ignorance) but can’t a new trial be called if new evidence found which was not considered in the first trial? Or if it can be proven the the judge erred in applying the principles of law in the first trial?


    August 4, 2011 at 12:33 am

    • if concrete new evidence is found then a case can return to court, but that situation is practically nonexistant. After all, if a taped confessions is not considered evidence, what is? You are correct, though, if new evidence is presented a case can return to court, as well as if it is proven that the judge made a mistake.

      Danielle Keeler

      August 4, 2011 at 8:12 am

      • Thanks for replying. It is very interesting! :)


        August 6, 2011 at 1:24 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: