Coming to Grips with the Casey Anthony Verdict
I don’t remember exactly how old she was, but as best I can recall she was about ten. I found her just a few hours after she was killed.
It happened more than 25 years ago, but the memory haunts me still. I had been a cop in South Central Los Angeles for a few years and seen many people who had come to a violent end, but I had never seen a murder victim so young and so undeserving of what became of her.
I had been sent on a radio call about a missing child, a fairly common occurrence, and there was nothing to indicate it would turn out any differently than any of the others I had handled: You go to the house, talk to the parents, take a report, and then make a big show of conducting a search while waiting for the child to come running home or turn up at some friend’s or relative’s house. Every cop knows the routine.
So I was one of a handful of officers who went knocking on doors on the street where the girl lived, asking residents if they had seen her and if they would allow us to look in their backyards and garages and any other place on their property where a ten-year-old might hide. It was at the third or fourth house I came to that a man answered the door and told me, no, he hadn’t seen the girl and to go ahead and look around in his backyard. He could have slammed the door in my face, he could have refused to allow the search, but that surely would have focused suspicion on him. He must have hoped I wouldn’t look too hard and just move on to the next house.
And indeed I went perfunctorily through the motions as I went about peering into the crawl spaces under the house and lifting the lids on trash cans, all the while expecting at any moment to be notified the girl had been found. And then I lifted the lid on another trash can –
And there she was.
She was in a fetal position, with her hands under her chin and her knees tucked into her chest. Her blouse had a floral-print pattern and her pants were light blue. And she had no shoes on, a detail that has oddly remained with me all these years. At first she looked to be sleeping, and my initial thought was that she was hiding and merely pretending to be asleep, for who could sleep all curled up in a trash can as she was?
But of course she was not asleep. The man who had answered the door, I would soon learn, had sexually assaulted and killed her before putting her there in the trash can. He at first denied it, as most of them do, but faced with the abundant evidence against him he confessed to detectives and later pleaded guilty to the crime. This being Los Angeles, it’s fair to assume he’s out of prison by now.
That poor little girl in the trash can would be in her mid-30s today, perhaps with children of her own. She came to mind as the Casey Anthony trial drew to its unfortunate conclusion last week. I hadn’t paid much attention to the trial. I’m fascinated by crime but I get enough of it at work, so there’s no need to invite descriptions of it into my living room. But if you watched the news at all in the last few weeks it was impossible to avoid mention of the case, and like most people I always assumed Anthony had killed her daughter Caylee, either deliberately or by accident.
Also like most people, I assumed Anthony would be convicted and perhaps even sentenced to death. I even thought, given that the crime occurred in Florida and not California, where more death-row inmates die of natural causes than by lethal injection, that Anthony might actually be put to death, to my mind a fitting end for anyone, parent or not, who takes the life of a defenseless child.
But instead she’ll soon walk out of jail, convicted of nothing more than lying to the police during their investigation. A wholly unsatisfying outcome and to most observers an unjust one.
When the murderer of that ten-year-old girl was allowed to plead guilty and avoid a death sentence, I was surprised and disappointed. Again, I hadn’t been a cop all that long and was still learning how things worked at the Criminal Courts Building in downtown Los Angeles. Why, I asked, with all the evidence against the killer, with even a confession to the crime, didn’t the district attorney’s office take the case to trial and go for a death sentence?
Sad analysis but true. The Anthony jury did a proper job. Wonder why the prosecutors thought they had a case when at least one element was missing? Strange.
The lesson from the OJ verdict is a DA should never rush to trial without knowing what all the evidence means. Thought that from the first day, but was still gobsmacked by the verdict.
With only circumstantial evidence, the prosecutor’s went for the throat when they should have just went with the state’s evidence and went for a life-time conviction.
The jury had NO CHOICE. If you look through the myriad of photos with mother/daughter it was obvious she loved her child. Something happened. Accident? Mayhem? Nobody will no.
Speaking of myriad…I made a ‘myriad’ of typos and grammatical errors.
UGH Too early for me!
…”a lifetime conviction.”
But for what? With no evidence to tie Casey directly to the fate of her daughter, even that is out of reach in this case. About the only thing I can think of that could have possibly stuck like that proverbial wet wad of tissue paper on the ceiling would have been a child neglect charge for not reporting her daughter missing for 30 days.
Yea…it was so obvious she loved that kid….she wasn’t reported missing by her for 31 days! It was her mother that pushed the issue of that kid missing.
It’s also obvious that she loved her new found freedom as much….videos of her arse bumping and new tattoos celebrating..”the good life”.
I agree. Bella Vita, baby. Yes, she loved her so. Even though we knew at least she improperly disposed of the body after her ‘accident’ in the pool. She then lied to the police for six months, wearing a where’s Caylee t-shirt and leading law enforcment on a goose chase of her fake job, fake boyfriend, and fake nanny even though she knew Caylee was rotting in a swamp. Casey loved the camera, and there was a smile on her face any time that shutter was open, whether it was with her daughter in her arms or partying it up. I saw a couple of photos were she actuall leaned around someone else just to make sure she was in the shot, wide grinning for the camera. Her apologist can all hide behind the jury, but the embarrasing fact is that everyone else can see clearly what the jury would not.
You can love someone and be abusive to that person you love. It happens. My mother loved me but she was physically violent with me on many an occasion.
Is it true that Anthony and the Winkler “widow” have beeb seen holding hands?
About the OJ fiasco: when the prosecution selected a jury from the “hood”, they, at that point, guaranteed a not guilty decision. No one could return to and live in South Central,(77th, newton, etc.),after convicting “the brother”.
Don’t you suppose they knew that? Just maybe they wanted to avoid another destructive riot?
“Just maybe they wanted to avoid another destructive riot?”
That was the impression I got. Convicting O.J. was simply a not-worth-it category for the city of Los Angeles. JMO.
Wrong. The Anthony jury DID NOT do a “proper” job, but the fault isn’t entirely theirs. As a society we’ve become so risk-averse that we want guarantees for everything. The admonition “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” is completely misunderstood. Today’s juries, because of the distortion of the precautionary principle we live with these days, want to be 100% certain of the defendant’s guilt before they’ll convict. Also, “circumstantial evidence” has become a pejorative and is completely misunderstood. Contrary to popular narrative, it is perfectly logical and rational to be able to convict someone with an abundance of circumstantial evidence.
Jury was wrong in their decision, and we are wrong as a society to live with irrational expectations of safety, certainty, and absolute security.
Very well-written piece, especially where you “lifted the lid on another trash can–”
Such a moment would not evoke horror at first, but genuine disbelief.
It’s strange the “magical thinking” we do when confronted by something so terrible.
How did Scott Peterson get convicted?
He’s a man. Furthermore if Casey Anthony has been holmey looking, her ass would be in jail right now.
Rik she i homely looking. true she isn’t UGLY. but she’s far from beautifull. and her sorry ass should fry. actualy it is a shame they dont have hanging any more because that is what I would love to see,
Peterson is a white male; fair game. The DA intended to and competently did erase all doubts in any sane mind. The jury was a more logical group that the Anthony bunch.
With all respect to Mr. Dunphy, a most knowledgeable man, if there had not been sufficient evidence to convict her, the judge would have honored the defende motion to dismiss for lack of evidence. The judge decides the law; the jury decides the facts.
One: T.V. trials have to stop. Its better I would have never known this woman got away with murder. I believe it corrupts the whole process. Prosecutors, Defense attorneys, and jurors alike cannot help but be influenced by the media hype.
Two: When did reasonable doubt become beyond a shadow of a doubt? All this trial has done is show would be murderers that they just have to hide the body long enough and they are home free. Proof is an abstract construct. There are very few things you can prove.
It’s all legalistic pugilism with both sides fighting a litigious battle of procedure and legal wrangling while justice is trampled underfoot. Jury selection is joke with each side trying to manipulate the pool to their side. Expert lawyer mercenaries like Dorothy Clay Sims are hired because of their proficiency at cross examining, i.e. convoluting the testimony of expert medical witnesses. Jose Baez pulls the sex abuse card to give sympathy cover to his obviously deranged client. How can this happen with disbarment? After the trial he’s in the bar whooping it up at his new found celebrity, unfazed by the societal damage he and his ilk are contributing too. It sickens me to know that justice is decided by them that have the more manipulative legal team.
>>When did reasonable doubt become beyond a shadow of a doubt?
I agree. We all learned to do indirect proofs in high school geometry.
One more thought: Is the law supposed to serve justice, or the other way around? Or are they supposed to be related but independent of each other? Dershowitz’s statement about sacrificing justice for the victim for the sake of the law doesn’t necessarily seem like the right ending to me.
Only a lawyer would think that the law is above justice. To a lawyer, justice has nothing to do with the legal system. The law is god. Justice only matters to the layman.
All very well said, Rik.
I think this is the crux of the matter. Given the current legal understanding of that phrase, “reasonable doubt”, the jury did the right thing. But our understanding of that phrase has been badly skewed by too many liberal activist judicial rulings. Because of the “exclusionary rule”, juries often don’t see important evidence. Because of convoluted legal “reasoning”, common sense has gone out the window.
In this case, the jury was not allowed to examine an object (a can of some kind) which would have tied the smell of decomposition directly to Casey in a compelling manner. Somehow, in the legal world, examining the evidence and coming to their own conclusions would make them “witnesses” (yes, that’s the word the judge used) instead of jurors, and somehow, that would not be permissible.
If there was any single ruling in this case that might have turned this verdict the other way, this was it.
Yet the judge appeared to be on solid legal grounds in making the ruling. In fact, given the case law he cited, had he NOT ruled as he did, any conviction would likely have been overturned on appeal. I don’t fault this judge – it’s the system that is broken.
We all (or SHOULD all) want a legal system where it is impossible to convict an innocent person, or as close to that as we can get. In striving for that, we have to accept that such a system will sometimes free the guilty.
But the whole point of a jury system is that common people, using common sense, should be able to look at the evidence and render a sensible, just verdict.
Our legal wranglings and rulings have distorted that idea beyond recognition.
It’s a line of “reasoning” that not only infects our judicial system, but our social proceses and policies in general. Anything from draconian particulate matter rules from the EPA to zero tolerance rules in our schools, fears of fetal alcohol syndrome from a mother taking one drink ocasionally, “third-hand smoke,” or whatever, we’ve become ruled by a neurotic/obsessive tyranny based on an unrealistic demand for absolute certainty and impossible guarantees.
There was a time I opposed the “Exclusionary Rule”–the idea that evidence should be “tainted” and thown out, if obtained illegally. The day I realized that it’s our only defense to violations of the 4th Amendment, though, I came to accept it as necessary for preserving our freedoms.
Be careful what you wish for: in our attempts to push for “perfect justice”, we often create traps that ensnare even the innocent.
It seems juries are always more sympathetic to women than to men. Look at the Susan Smith murder case. She should have been given the death penalty for the premeditated murder of her children, but was not. There are lots of other cases just like that, especially for much lesser crimes (such as all of those public school teachers getting very light sentences for having sex with their students). I guess most juries just can’t believe that women are capable of being as violent as men. But they can, and in this trial the jury just didn’t want to admit that.
Jack Dunphy wrote: “Time and the elements conspired to deny the discovery of any forensic evidence that might once have been present where (Caylee’s) body was found….”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
And whose fault was that? Casey Anthony’s to be sure, because she did not report her daughter missing for 31 days and even then she did not cooperate with the authorities, knowing full well where she hid her daughter’s body. For that alone she should be executed. But alas we buy reasoning from low-lifes like Alan Dershowitz. We accept dogmas and conventional wisdom without question. Why must there be proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” to convict? Why not sufficient evidence as surely there was in this case.
Because we want a system that safeguards the innocent against wrongful conviction. This is the very wise standard that our Founding Fathers implemented, and it should not be changed.
The problem is not with the standard, it is in how it is being interpreted.
You might want to read a book called, “Reasonable Doubt”. You can find it on Amazon.com.
It’s the story of the conviction of an innocent man, due to a prosecutor who was up for reelection, and a detective with an animosity toward Christianity.
I know the parents of the accused. There isn’t any question of who did the killing. He admitted it to a private investigator, then taunted him with legal reality that he would deny his confession, the PI’s testimony would be hearsay, and therefore not admissible. The killer’s wife (sister of the victim!) could testify, but her testimony is not admissible. Spouses cannot testify against spouses in most states.
So the legal system prevents us from bringing this murderer to justice, and a cloud remains over an innocent man who spent 8 years in prison for a crime he didn’t commit. He never should have been convicted.
There was reasonable doubt.
Well said. When people ask “Well, why does it have to be so complicated, why can’t they just convict her?” I have to reply “What if it was YOU on the stand?” Wouldn’t you want every possible chance to prove yourself innocent? Wouldn’t you want the entire system to bend over backward to make sure you receive every benefit, every bit of fairness and due process that the system can give you? Or would you want to be at the mercy of the general public and their lynch-mob mentality? Because that’s what Nancy Grace and the tabloids and a lot of the commenters about the Anthony case comprise: a nationwide, media-inflamed lynch mob. They are the ones our justice system is designed to protect YOU from. You may not like it when the system protects someone like Casey Anthony, but you definitely want that system protecting you when the time comes.
The jury was not using the “beyond a reasonable doubt” rule of thumb, they were using the post-modern “beyond any doubt whatsoever,” which is not reasonable. It is their fault that Anthony goes free. All I can say in their defense is that they, as post-modern Americans, have bought the narrative of absolute gurantees. It is because of this mindset that the jurors have deluded themselves into thinking that they were an exemplary jury, agonizing over the “fact” that there was “insufficient” evidence to convict, despite their feling that she was guilty. This is sad and pathetic.
Jack, you’re a cop. I’m a grandson of a cop, but I’m a military man. I’d have shot that SOB and claimed he grabbed for my gun when I opened the trash can.
As for the Anthony case, I live in Central Florida, and the TV and radio coverage has far exceeded that of a manned Moon mission. The judge should have told the jury that if they did not at least put Casey Anthony in jail we would never get the damn case off TV. They’d have locked her up at least 20 years.
The police also have a large share of the blame for this result. Had they actively responded to the first call from the meter reader, there may well have been sufficient evidence to tie this poor child’s death to her mother.
The verdict sickens me, but I have to remind myself, I was not on the jury, I did not see all of the evidence, I did not hear all of the testimony.
Casey Anthony will not have an easy life of it, no matter what she thinks now.
Fred Burr
“The police also have a large share of the blame for this result. Had they actively responded to the first call from the meter reader, there may well have been sufficient evidence to tie this poor child’s death to her mother.”
I have heard and read the apathy of the Police Dept and slackness in investigation. I have also read and heard Anthony’s father was a cop. As was one of her boyfriends. He was a sheriff’s deputy in training had a sexual relationship with with Casey Anthony and was fired. Personal and emotional involvement in such a high profile case? Cover up? Happens in my town all the time. Watched the trial somewhat and still looking for what Anthony sympathizers and jury are calling the missing pieces of evidence for conviction. What you have here are a group of politically correct individuals who did not want to get their hands dirty. This trial will set an unwanted standard in trials for years to come. Evidence should not be picked and chosen for the benifit of defense or prosecutor. It’s like the game is called before the trial has begun. Show trial for media and family to make lots of money!!
Thank you. This is the attitude we all should take, instead of second guessing the jurors who have FAR more information than we do.
Those who go ranting about “stupid jurors”, yes, even in the O.J. case, only show how little they know.
I think due to the Sunshine Law, regualar people had more access to the information than the jury was “allowed” to see. That’s part of the legal wrangling that disgusts so many people.
I listened to part of the interview Greta Van Susteran had with the jury foreman and I believe the jury did not follow instructions. From what I gathered reading between the lines I think the jury discussed this case throughout the trial and I do not believe they are supposed to do that. I think they are instructed not to as a matter of fact until the whole case is presented. I know they are not where I live.
A judge has no grounds to give instructions to a jury, and they should not–why bother having a jury if the judge decides for them what they can consider?
The judge is obligated to instruct the jurors as to what is to be considered in light of the law. Jurors are not lawyers.
Jurors have the right and the responsibility to judge the law as well. This is called “Jury Nullification”, and it is one reason juries are necessary for preserving liberty: juries are free to reject conviction, if the law in question is either immoral, or if enforcing the law in a particular case would be unjust.
It’s why the Crown didn’t want to have jury trials of patriots in the time up before the Revolutionary War: otherwise they wouldn’t get convictions.
It’s also why modern prosecutors will try to make sure that any potential juror for a given case will do their darnedest to make sure they have never heard of jury nullification.
Taken to it’s logical conclusion, the gist of this article would seem to be why bother with laws or law enforcement at all since some slick, soulless, defense attorney, aided and abetted by some moronic jury, will find a way to let the most heinous criminals go free. So, it’s just shrug your shoulders, say ‘my, my’ and hope you don’t become a victim because no one is going to see that you get justice and but will brag about what a wonderful legal system we have. Sickening and cynical.
That’s not quite what I got. I did unfortunately get the idea that the police and prosecutors should take the best deal they can get without committing the case to the care of an ignorant and credulous jury that believes what they see on “CSI” and “Law & Order.”
When I was on a jury, the judge defined “reasonable doubt” as “a doubt for which there is a reason.” I still don’t see how the Anthony jury had reasons for their doubts. I can see why they might have had some unanswered questions but logic should have driven them to the inescapable conclusion. Unfortunately, logic was in short supply.
“When I was on a jury, the judge defined “reasonable doubt” as “a doubt for which there is a reason.” I still don’t see how the Anthony jury had reasons for their doubts.”
There is a way to see how: Three (among others, of course) very important questions must be asked & answered. First, who put that tape on Caylee’s face? How is it known that it was Casey who put that tape there? Was the tape put on her face before or after she died?
When I sat on a petit jury, the judge said something while giving us instructions that was quite profound to my mind: “I am the judge of the law, but you are judges of the facts.” I took that to mean that, with regard to deliberations & what is to be decided, only the facts are given serious consideration, not conjectures, guesses, deductions or connecting dots that may or may not lead to a reasonable conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt.
In this case, there just was not enough evidence to tie Casey to Caylee’s death without tossing in conjectures, deductions, assumptions, etc.
This jury, with what it was handed in the way of evidence, did the right thing.
“only the facts are given serious consideration, not conjectures, guesses, deductions or connecting dots that may or may not lead to a reasonable conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt.”
And this is exactly what the moron known as juror #3 did. She testified that they speculated, guessed and claimed that “this was an accident that turned into a homicide”!
How did she know that? Also…she was adamantly opposed to the death penalty….which the jurors are not to consider in their deliberations…period. That belongs to the second phase of jury deliberations. In addition during the voie dire all these jurors swore that they had no… NO opposition to capital punishment.
Yet #3 claimed that she couldn’t live with herself if she had “murdered” another human being!
#3 disgraced her oath and turned this into an anti capital punishment issue which she had no business doing.
The jury had viable alternatives in their decision. the least onerous would have been to find anthony guilty of aggravated child abuse for her lies to law enforcement alone….which led police on a wild goose chase to fine the childs remains.
Anthony is the face of evil. And should have been jailed for the latter offense.
I noted that as well & was disturbed by what #3 had to say. I doubt seriously though that her opinions were shared by the group. I am more inclined to think that there was a handful of sensible jurors who took the lead & kept the group on track AFA sticking to the facts & not getting sidetracked by circumstantial minutiae that added up to nothing important.
“I still don’t see how the Anthony jury had reasons for their doubts. ”
Because Mrs. Anthony had an alternative explanation for the child’s death to which the prosecution had no reply, and the prosecution’s theory of the motive for the supposed deliberate murder depended on the mother resenting the child’s existence–there was no evidence for that either.
That’s something I don’t hear anyone saying–there is no evidence Casey Antohony killed her daughter, there is only weak evidence she personally hid the body and even knew she was dead within hours of here death, if in fact she did not herself deliberately or accidentally kill the child. The prosecution was supposing she did–and it is likely she did–but there is in fact no proof of that.
You’ve hit on exactly what I have waited for in this trial – MOTIVE. So important yet sidestepped by the prosecution. They never did prove Casey had motive for offing her child. IMO if you can’t prove motive then you have at most a case for manslaughter.
Had they made a case showing a motive for murdering her daughter she might have been facing a death sentence – instead she walks free tomorrow.
We’ll never know for sure just how Caylee died unless Casey comes out and tells us – and for all we know she already has. The trouble is how many people are hard-wired in this case to believe only one thing – that Casey killed Caylee – no other version will be believed.
This case had very few facts presented – that Casey lied to police seems to be among the very few that can be called fact – and the sad fact that one little girl is dead.
kathryn of Wyoming:
3 years to a trial? Attorney Jose picked up in jail as counsel? He was a newbie on the block cruising for business. Two Death Penalty experts quit. One was forensic medical expert Biden’s wife. Two(2)half million dollar bails posted. One was Padilla and one was family. This case had it all, media and movie quality.
But, Caylee Anthony still dead and she did not kill herself, put tape on mouth and wrap herself in her blanket and insert herself in garbage bags and hide in the woods.
Someone is guilty and I bet Law and Justice know who.
As a retired defense attorney, I can tell you that the most important phase of a criminal trial is the jury selection process. If you can seat jurors who lack common sense, or who tend to abandon common sense when some confusion is thrown into the midst, then your chances of an acquittal are substantially enhanced. Jurors who lack common sense are easily confused by the term “beyond a reasonable doubt”. The defense team in this case did an excellent job during the jury selection phase.
There was more than reasonable doubt. All the prosecution proved is that there was a dead body (could not prove murder, if it was who did it, or the cause of death). They never proved that there ever was a crime committed. Reasonable doubt only comes in if the prosecution can prove the crime. When they can’t prove a crime was committed then there is no need for reasonable doubt.
Had there not been the media sensationalism around the trial the prosecutor would have probably gone with a plea for a lesser charge or not even tried to go to trial with no legal case other than a suspicious dead body.
These Jurors had common sense and actually did there jobs. Most Juries are willing to convict on cases with no evidence of a crime because of sensationalism of the prosecution, here they did not fall for that. If only all Juries were a logical and legally smart as this one
The prosecutor did go with lesser charges, for example, aggrivated manslaughter and child abuse in addition to murder one.
involuntary manslaughter and endangering the welfare of a child would have drawn a prison term.
EXACTLY! And that would have been appropriate.
I think the Murder 1 charge was based not so much on prosecutor’s overreach but on the partying she did after the crime was committed. When you accidently kill your child you don’t go dancing. Ergo, they figured she must have done it deliberately.
Again, with no evidence at all to tie Casey directly to whatever did happen to Caylee, an involuntary manslaughter charge carries no weight. As stated elsewhere among these threads, the state failed to prove that a murder took place.
Ed:
Where I live we call them chickens. As in dumber than chickens.
Bet the only thing on their minds was where is the nearest Starbucks.
Probably one of the questions during Jury selection was “do you drink Starbucks’. Bingo!
The Problem with Case Anthony was that the prosecution had no evidence that a crime had been committed, only a dead body with not cause of death. They had no motive to a crime, which makes it hard to prove on circumstantial grounds. Their own witnesses did them in with contradictory statements. The prosecution had no theory that fit all the evidence. Defense brought in ‘experts’ to prove that she had major issues from alleged abuse as a child that would ‘explain’ her actions.
While I am 100% sure she is guilty, here the justice system won. Its innocent until proven guilty and the prosecution could not prove guilt at all (remember it they who must prove guilt, not the reverse), not even within reasonable doubt from a legal stand point. What this case showed was that a jury can make a decision based on evidence in court, than media sensationalism. As much as I hate the verdict it was the right call from a legal perspective and proof that the system of innocent until proven guilty works.
Before the body of Caylee was found, Casey was released on bail for felony bad check charges-and was photographed wearing a T-shirt that said “Where is Caylee” with a picture of Caylee on it. This was never mentioned in a trial-but, can someone answer why the Jury was so absolutely certain that Casey did nothing “abusive”,nor had anything to do with the disappearance of Caylee?
The only reason why WHY is-the Jury was hypnotized distracted by the cameras and
or the Defense derailment of the case by the fact that the Defense strategy was to become the prosecutor or Geoerge Anthony.
Either way- the Judge failed to keep the Court on course and allowed the Defense to violate-I believe.
Charles,you have it exactly backwards. Nobody said the jury was certain of her innocence on any count.
What the jury said was that the prosecution did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
It’s not up to the accused to prove innocence. It’s up to the prosecution to prove guilt.
They didn’t even prove there was a murder, let alone prove who committed it.
Mark I respect your opinion, but I feel it’s that sort of cognitive dissonance that has gotten the system where it is. A body, wrapped in a bag, with duct tape over its mouth, dumped in a swamp is disputed as “no proof of murder?” As I said above, all a murderer now has to do is hide the body long enough for decomposition to take place and there is, viola, no proof of murder.
Sorry, but those circumstances do not prove murder.
Arguably, murder is the most probable explanation for those circumstances.
But “most probable” is not the same as “proven”. Odd things happen in this world: coincidences, accidents, mistaken identities.
People do foolish and reprehensible things that are not criminal, and then do things to conceal those actions that look like consciousness of guilt.
And yes, if sufficient delay destroys forensic evidence, the murderer can escape. Bear in mind that some evidence will last more or less forever. A skull with a bullet hole, for instance, or poison in tissues. The poisoning of Napoleon Bonaparte was detected long after his death by analysis of his preserved hair. But other forms are perishable. If they go, they go.
The principles of justice embodied in our tradition do not allow for conviction on the grounds that the defendant is a bad person, or that something bad happened.
There must be convincing evidence, proving beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime.
Most accused criminals are unattractive – stupid, dirty, drunken, poor, lazy, ignorant, foolish, bad-tempered, selfish. That’s what most criminals are, after all. Against them is the awesome power of the state – the police, and the prosecutors – and often the hostility of the community at large.
The requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt is a counterweight, included in the system to balance the factors that would otherwise make it too easy for the prosecution to convict any defendant.
Put it this way: would you feel safe without that requirement, in a jurisdiction where Mike Nifong was prosecutor?
After watching the interviews with Cheney Mason, and his remarks about how “smart and likeable Casey is” no one ever challenges him with how he can arrive at any kind of rational judgement about her personality or character considering she is such a prolific liar? Secondly, how can the defense team raise toasts to winning when Caylee’s death and abandonment in a swamp will never be reconciled with appropriate justice? They should be ashamed.
Cheney Mason said that he, Jose Baez and the rest of the legal group were basically forced into the bar by the crowd trying to get to them for comment….the bar owner locked the front door without being asked to do so…and brought out the champagne unasked….Cheney Mason also said that they were not toasting winning the trial or Casey Anthony’s freedom to come….they were toasting the Constitution of the United States of America and we should all be doing the same. Thank God for our Constitution.
All throughout the trial, I heard time and time again what an unexperienced, terrible attorney Jose Baez was…..hummmmmmmm….looks like “they” were incorrect in their assesment of him.
What I don’t understand is did anyone REALLY expect Casey Anthony’s father to say, “Yeah, sure I have been sexually molesting my daughter for YEARS….clap the hand-cuffs on me and take me to jail”….no one is going to answer that question in the affirmative unless they WANT to go to jail. And, if George Anthony is crying on the witness stand and Casey acts like she has no sympathy for him, it makes sense to me that perhaps George HAD been molesting her and scared her to death. No child molester who values their freedom is going to admit to it.
During the trial…if Casey Anthony looked upset, the media said she was feeling guilt and remorse….if she smiled, she was a heartless bitch…if she cried it was because she wanted sympathy for herself…if she showed no emotion she was uncaring….there was no way that this young woman could please anyone in the media or a lot of regular people who think they were there and know what happened….they don’t.
The media has changed the concept of “innocent until proven guilty” to “guilty until you better, by God, prove to ME that you are innocent because I want SOMEBODY to pay for this and you, Sweetie-pie, are it!”
The jury listened to all of the evidence…..they were still there and were listening when HLN went to commercial. The jury was not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey Anthony murdered her child and the prosecution did not prove it to me either.
It is OVER….there was not a preponderance of evidence to convict her. No matter if she did it or didn’t do it, or if she knows that her father did something to and with her child, her life is over for all intents and purposes. If someone wants to be her friend, her lover, her boyfriend or her husband, she going to have to suspect that person’s motives and with good reason. If she is guilty, she will be paying for it….if she is innocent, she will still be paying for it. Her own private hell is just beginning. What is more sad than Casey’s plight…is the fact that a beautiful, precious child is lost to everyone that loved her…there is no bringing her back and there is nothing in this world that will change that fact.
Dear God in Heaven….when will people start to value babies, unborn and born, and little children again in this country?
The jury system, in fact, the entire system of law…depends upon a respect for the truth.
There was a time that being a liar, and being caught lying, was very damaging to your reputation. And your self-esteem.
Today witnesses lie, parties lie, the judges are often corrupt, the juries are made up of people who are willing to lie to get on the jury, willing to lie about fairness and willing to silently conspire with one side or the other.
I have tried cases which involved “jury nullification”, they completely ignored the evidence and decided the case based upon political bent or race.
I have tried cases in which the judge all but announced that not a single ruling would be fair or objective.
I have tried cases in which the judge gave every appearance of having taken money on the case from the other side as a bribe.
I have tried cases in which the judge had ex parte communications with the other side about the case, then denied it when caught, then said it was only their “clerk” who had the conversations, as if that was any less improper.
For the most part, in flyover country, …there is still a sense of honor, integrity, cherishing of ethics and respect for the law. But, in some counties…if you have a certain defendant, or you are on a particular “side” in the case…you go into any trial with a distinct disadvantage. In other words, the law may be completely in your favor, the facts may be wholly on your side…and you will lose.
It doesn’t have to happen often. I won over 90% of the cases I took to verdict. And some of those I lost, it was not due to anything unfair or untoward.
But, it only has to happen a few times to make you sour on making it your life’s work any longer. It makes you feel you need a shower and you just can’t shake the feeling that it really isn’t worth it to be involved.
Lawyers have completely lost their sense of honor and integrity within the system as well. Plaintiffs will lie about almost anything to win a case, evidence is hidden, falsified, perjury is so commonplace it isn’t even considered an offense.
The system is diseased. There is very little honor…and frankly…”your honor…as the court is addressed quite often should be “your total lack of honor”.
Our appellate courts are political extensions of party politics.
Finding “justice” in our department of justice is a cosmic joke.
A system that depends upon a respect for the truth and a community that has an ethical bond and a burning desire to maintain integrity…simply does not reflect our “party power” and leftist narcissism of modern society. They are at odds with each other.
Casey Anthony did absolutely nothing to suggest that she was anything but a complete stranger to the truth and to integrity. This jury ignored that, but they did reflect modern justice. Technicalities and tricks trump justice.
I would feel better about that, if the entire system was not so diseased with party politics and a lack of respect for the truth.
I walked away from a lifelong dream of becoming an attorney. It just was no longer what I had believed it would be.
Well said. Many of us once had that dream – until we got a glimpse of what could crawl out from under those rocks. The Anthony jury obviously never understood the concept of “reasonable doubt”. Sometimes it needs to be explained more than once.
The system is diseased.
The system is not the diseased but society and the culture. You said it yourself, once upon a time the real punishment for getting caught lying had nothing to do with the legal system.
CFBleachers,
Like you I have tried cases in fly-over country. I won or hung a lot more than I lost, but after nine years I had to take a break. I believe in honor and believe in our system as an ideal. However, when ypu hear a dumbass judge tell a jury after it hung on a drug case that they let an guilty man go free (I eventually got him acquitted-he called me later to represent on the same type of case, but couldn’t pay) and also began jury selection of a black man charged with raping a white woman who took the alleged perp home and admitted “kissing him on the jaw” in the retrial, it wears you out. Itis terrible that the state and federal appellate courts will deny a habeas petition on two cases that were interrelated but separate trials, where in one trial he is acquitted and the other he is convicted based on 99% of the same evidence, where the state court of appeals said it would have ruled in favor of the defendant if it had been the trial judge or jury, and where the fed court appeals denies the habeas petition based on arguments not presented to the district court, it make you cynical and tired. It is to the point, and probably was before, that you can pick the winning side on appeal based on politics. What is even worse is the crap that goes in civil cases even if the court follows the liberal rules of civil procedure.
Civilian Courts for terrorists!
Great!
I guess we can expect more of the same!
I have seen comparisons between the OJ and Anthony juries. They are two vastly different situations – and in many ways the OJ situation was worse. The OJ trial was “jury nullification” (the jurors chose not to convict for reasons completely part from the evidence.) The evidence was clear, direct, and explicit. There were multiple “sets” of evidence. (One could have impeached some of the evidence and STILL have had enough for a guilty verdict.) There was not “reasonable doubt” as to OJ’s guilt – the jury simply refused to convict him. When one of the jurors was asked (after the trial) about Nichole’s blood in OJ’s car – he simply responded “That didn’t show me nothing.”
The Anthony jury was a completely different situation – and I feel sorry for these guys. The standard of “proof” for a criminal conviction is very high in the US (as it should be) and it is even higher for capital murder. The prosecution’s case seemed to be: 1. Her Baby is dead, 2. She is a lying scum bag, therefore 3. She is guilty of 1st degree murder. It is just darn near impossible to cross the “reasonable doubt” threshold without even a viable theory as to what, where, when or how. There was no theory as to specifically what happened (was Casey physically capable of doing whatever “it” was?), when it happened (did she have an alibi for the time period?), or where it happened (was she capable of being there?). The more vague an accusation is – the more difficult it is to prove it conclusively. In my view, the prosecution successfully proved that Casey Anthony is the type of person who WOULD kill a baby for selfish petty reasons – but that is completely different from proving that she committed a specific act beyond a reasonable doubt.
I feel for the jurors. I have been in these guy’s shoes. I have been foreman of a jury in a particularly heinous felony trial where the entire case was about what a low life the accused was (with almost no evidence proving his guilt of the specific crime in the indictment.) I thought he might have done it. I am sure that many of the Anthony jurors think she did it too. But… “Do you think they did it?” is not the question asked of jurors as they go into deliberations. The question is “Did the prosecution prove, with the evidence presented, the counts within the indictment (as specifically defined in the indictment) beyond a reasonable doubt? In this case, they unfortunately, did not.
Excellent post, and one of the few comments I’ve read that points out that the OJ case and this one were worlds apart. Even Marcia Clark has written that there is more evidence to convict Anthony than OJ…how insane is she?
Good comment but oversimplification of the factors involved in “OJ”. 1. Prosecution “rushed” to court without being ready. Didn’t know what all their evidence or witnesses would say. 2. Cops chosen as witnesses were not well-vetted or prepared and thus presented unwanted “surprises” for the DA, wasting time and energy. Case wheels came off the track. 3. DA team seemed to take “delight” in dissing the suspect, which too easily cast him as a “victim” rather than “abuser”.
An effective prosecution should be “good theater”. Professional, unbiased, almost – but not quite – apologetic for being forced to bring these unsavory facts before the jurors. Obviously having a great time, inappropriate laughter, enjoying the discomfort of a witness caught in perjury – all these things will bring about undesirable verdicts. In my experience.
I agree with much of what you write, but there is a point of difference in how I see things that I would like to point out.
You say:
“The prosecution’s case seemed to be: 1. Her Baby is dead, 2. She is a lying scum bag, therefore 3. She is guilty of 1st degree murder.”
Perhaps you were being flippant. However, this is quite a distance from what I believe the prosecution’s case sought to point out to 12 members of this community.
1)This child did not die a natural death;
2)The sole custodian, guardian and MOTHER of this child did not report her missing for over 30 days;
3)When the child was reported missing, the sole custodian, guardian and mother of this child, INTENTIONALLY misled police …who were on a mission to potentially find and possibly SAVE this toddler…with bizarre stories of fictional jobs, fictional nannies, fictional rich boyfriends.
Without more, the above three items would suggest to ANY reasonable person that the physical well being of this child is not only not a concern to Ms. Anthony, but that she is involved in a coverup of the harm done to this child.
4)The body was found in a swampy area, obviously disposed of to conceal the whereabouts and an act in furtherance of wrongdoing.
5)The body was found wrapped in duct tape and bags, a premeditated act prior to disposing of the body, in furtherance of wrongdoing.
6)The trunk of Ms. Anthony’s car had an odor of decomposing human flesh. Yes, I realize that the science of odor detection is new and untested. However, that particular odor is not one that is present in the normal course of human activity. ONCE ADMITTED, the jury was duty bound to consider it. They could weigh it, but they were not allowed to IGNORE it. They do not sit as mini-appellate judges…self-ruling on the propriety of evidentiary rulings.
7)She looked up chloroform, possibly 84 times;
8)She looked up neck-breaking;
For anyone to suggest that they were convinced that the defendant in this case was a “good mother” or that there was no convincing evidence that she was involved in the death of this toddler, is patently ridiculous.
There was clear and convincing evidence that made her and her alone the prime suspect.
The statements coming out now, after the verdict, suggest that NO jury could have found her guilty based upon the facts presented. This is a total misread in my opinion.
The defense said a)she was unfit to stand trial, b)she acted in a bizarre fashion…partying like it was 1999 while her toddler was “missing”; c)lied in a bizarre and inexplicable manner; …and did so because…she was molested, abused, and came from a severely dysfunctional home…it was an accident, she drowned in the pool, anyone else could have done it, it could have been a natural death, nobody knows nuthin’ about nuthin’.
Frankly, none of that was very persuasive, in my opinion. Therefore, the verdict had to come down to an issue of not whether she was involved, but HOW was she involved.
The defenses was powerless and meaningless on that issue. They could not present any evidence that she was not involved. None. Zero. Zip Nada.
The prosecution had nearly all its evidence on the coverup, but not the commission, of the crime.
It came down to jurors who would be willing or not willing to infer guilt from the acts of the coverup and concealment…were tied to the commission. Some would, some would not.
That nexus…was the entire case. The commentary that the defense was “brilliant” is ludicrous. The commentary that the state was “stupid” is also ridiculous. This case hinged on whether these twelve people would tie the coverup and concealment to the commission of this crime. Period. They didn’t.
I don’t blame them one bit. It was a tossup. In fact, playing it completely straight by the book, it was a less than even money bet. But Ms. Anthony is not innocent, no matter how they fell on the issue of that nexus.
Thoughtful post but just want to address some issues & point out how it was that it was too little for the jury to hang onto.
“This child did not die a natural death”
Considering the evidence that was presented, how is this known? How is it known she didn’t have an allergic reaction to something? A fatal arrhythmia from an unknown congenital heart defect? Such a list could go on…..
“The sole custodian, guardian and MOTHER of this child did not report her missing for over 30 days”
Yep, she’s a pathological liar; we can all buy that. But what exactly does it have to do with her direct involvement in the child’s fate? Could she be covering up for a boyfriend who could have killed the child? Did George do something to her a la Jon Benet Ramsey & Casey was covering for him?
See where I am going with this? Only conjectures & assumptions can be applied when addressing all these issues you cite above. Because it is not known how she died, because it is not known just who it was who put that duct tape on her & disposed of her body in such an unceremonious fashion, no verdict of guilt can be rendered upon anyone. “Innocent until proven guilty” is heard all the time but must be put into practice if the integrity of what it means is to be preserved.
I really don’t think it’s all that flippant to say Casey very likely committed that veritable “perfect murder.” Despite all that, I think we have the best possible system of justice ever conceived.
A jury is not required to leave their common sense at the door when they come into a courtroom. A reasonable doubt is not defined as stretching the bounds of credulity.
Nor is it ANY possibility that some other answer might, maybe, could…in the most remote way, explain away the totality of where the evidence points.
It could have been an alien abduction. It could have been a paranormal invasion of poltergeists. If we rule nothing out, then everything stands as a reason to acquit. This is NOT the legal standard.
The jury may use reason, logic and common sense to fill in the nexus between existing evidence pieces. One could choose to believe that a mother duct tapes the mouth shut of a child that died of an allergy, hides the body and then lies about the whereabouts.
But one does not have to believe that.
If it snowed last night while we were sleeping, one could choose to believe that an artificial snowmaker drove up and down the streets spraying snow on the trees, lawns and streets. Or, one can believe…in the absence of a shred of proof that such a thing happened…that it snowed the way it usually does.
The mother not reporting the child missing is a key piece of evidence. We do not need to conjure up every theory as to why she would do this. All signs point to the most logical reason, which the jury can absolutely arrive at.
No CF – a jury may not “infer” action. The fact that she did not report her daughter missing for a month is NOT evidence of a murder. A reasonable private citizen might make that inference – but the law can’t.
Let me give an example. Suppose I hang out all night in a bar. I then get in a car and drive home. That is not – in and of itself evidence of DUI. If no one performed a field sobriety test, saw me stagger or got a blood alcohol level hanging out at a bar is not evidence of drunkenness.
There has to be some direct evidence of what I am accused of.
Now, suppose there is some level of direct evidence – suppose I am seen staggering out to my car and having trouble putting the keys in the lock – then the fact that I was hanging out all night in a bar would make it very difficult for me to claim that I tripped on a rock or perhaps that I have a reaction to some medicine. The fact that I was hanging out in a bar would support the direct evidence – but it is not in and of itself direct evidence of anything.
This was the story of the Anthony trial. Lots of indirect evidence (she “acted guilty”) but no evidence that she did the deed.
“Therefore, the verdict had to come down to an issue of not whether she was involved, but HOW was she involved.”
That may be true, but nobody could prove that “how she was involved” was “she killed her daughter.”
People are getting confused here. This was not a case where the Court should have ruled that the State failed to meet their burden at the close of their evidence.
The jury was left to take the circumstantial evidence and come to a conclusion.
Prior to the verdict, in fact, MOST ATTORNEY PUNDITS were predicting a guilty verdict.
The jury was well within their rights to find her guilty on any or all counts. And they can take the sum total of the evidence and based upon it…circumstantial or not…have found her guilty.
They can “infer” by her actions, that she is the one who disposed of the body, hid it because she was responsible for the child’s death, covered up the crime and intentionally misled the police…because she was guilty and wanted to cover up her crime. In fact, many people STILL believe this.
Again, they could also NOT do that. Which many here would not have. And that’s understandable. But, if you believe she could not have been found guilty, based on the evidence presented…that is simply wrong.
What is so stunning to me is that having heard from something like three jurors now it seems that they pretty much fixated on George Anthony deciding that he had “selective memory” and that they just didn’t believe him and did believe what that woman who claimed to have been his mistress said. It seems that very little consideration of any other evidence was considered very much or at all and that Baez was very successful in convincing the jury that George was the bogey man. In other words, they pretty much bought those cock and bull stories thrown out by the “brilliant” defense and that are basically the story lines for every cop show on TV. Twelve people bereft of commonsense or critical thinking.
Absolutely correct, Karen.
” It seems that very little consideration of any other evidence was considered very much or at all and that Baez was very successful in convincing the jury that George was the bogey man. In other words, they pretty much bought those cock and bull stories thrown out” -end of story.
Jury failed- and I believe Judge lost control of the case-from the beginning.
Prosecution failed to take back attention and focus of the Jury…
Indeed! When a juror gives the “black power” salute to the defendant after the verdict is read, we can be pretty sure the evidence wasn’t foremost in his mind.
Yes, and some of it, clearly tampered with. Blood samples taken from OJ, two tubes of blood, went missing for TWO WEEKS. Completely unaccounted for. The detective said, in essence, “Oh, I’m sorry, I forgot they were in my suit coat pocket all that time.” Samples taken from the back gate, supposedly left by the killer, turned up with a preservative in them. The prosecution was quick to point out that the “preservative” is a naturally concurring substance in human blood. True – that’s why it’s used as a preservative. This was all reported by the media. Case closed? For some reason, the defense team’s rebuttal went unreported – the levels in the samples were thousands of times higher than normally found in human blood, and could only be explained by the blood having been withdrawn from the body in the standard tubes, which are pre-loaded with this preservative. The same kind of tubes that were missing for two weeks.
Jury nullification? Yes, without doubt. Jury stupidity? I don’t think so.
When you have good reason to believe that evidence has been tampered with, should you convict anyway? Hmmm. I have a problem with that.
Don’t forget the bloody sock that turned up in the middle of the bedroom. Funny nobody could see the blood on the socket except it was plainly evident in the pictures shown after the trial. BTW, I believe it was the sock that showed the markers for EDTA (2 positive and one consistent). It was after Marsha Clark berated the prosecution expert out of the courtroom that he claimed the EDTA was the normal human background level. Judge Ito seemed to be amazed that there was no prosecution rebuttal witness to the defense expert’s claim that the level was lethal. The sock was almost certainly planted (remember it did not show up in the video taken before still (at least by the time stamps from the cameras in question). I’ve been on 7 juries including one where a prosecution expert clearly lied on the witness stand – we found for not guilty in less than one minute. Given probable evidence tampering why would anyone trust the prosecution’s case and find for guilty.
“Coming to Grips with the Casey Anthony Verdict”
Thank you for this article Jack and to all the posters on this article.
Listening to the media is like listening to white noise. Clarity is not part of this case, it is like a bad gossip column.
Thank you again.
Rather than committing a robbery in Las Vegas, Casey Anthony will most likely be found dead of a drug overdose in some scummy boyfriend’s bathroom some day. The justice will be cosmic.
A body found dumped in a swamp, in a cloth bag and gagged with duct tape can only be the body of a murdered person. We don’t need the exact medical details of the cause of death to know this, we’re not trying here to prove a mathematical theorem. If the defense wants to convince me that this was in fact an accident, they would need to provide further evidence and it would have to be solid. In the Anthony trial, the prosecution presented a case based on clear evidence and the jury believed instead the outrageous theory of the defense which was presented without further evidence. No criminal could be convicted anymore if all juries were to believe whatever unfounded crazy theory the defense makes up over the common sense and well evidenced arguments of the prosecution. What are we all suppose to do from now on, “for justice we must go to Don Corleone?”
“A body found dumped in a swamp, in a cloth bag and gagged with duct tape can only be the body of a murdered person.”
Yes, a body yada yada as you state above, but dumped by whom? The evidence presented pointed to no one. Again, it is not up to a jury to arrive at conclusions based on anything other than the facts. Facts denote answers to pertinent questions other than “I don’t know.”
Here’s more of what in this case is apparently known as “yada yada,”
- Laundry bag, blanket and duct tape originating from the victim’s home.
- Mother of the victim lying to her parents for over 30 days about where the girl was.
- Mother of the victim not only failing to report the girl’s disappearance but also lying all the time to the police about what happened to the girl.
- The supposed loving mother having a fun and wild party life right after the girl disappeared.
I’m sorry there’s no video of the mother dumping the body, but anyway the defense would’ve probably said she was being mind-controlled by purple people eaters from Venus hired by the CIA and the jury would’ve believe it.
“Lizzie Borden took an axe and gave her father 40 whacks — and when she saw what she had done, she gave her mother 41.”
Shunning is an excellent and highly effective way of punishment when jailing has failed. OJ found that out, to his loud consternation. Amy Fisher, currently co-starring in Dr. Drew’s latest “cure the sorta famous addicts” program, is also bemoaning her stigmatization, and that she can’t get a job other than in the porn industry.
I’m pretty sure Ms. Anthony is going to find out that she, too, won’t be able to make an honest buck ever again, or find a safe place to lay her weary little pointy head.
Good.
(She looks distinctly weasel-y now, while she’s in the bloom of her youth. I’m betting she’ll be looking like a feral ferret within five years.)
I think at the sentencing Judge Perry missed a unique opportunity to allow Ms. Anthony to expunge herself of the crime, lying, that she was convicted. Since she was acquited of child abuse, manslaughter and on up, and to her mind exposed to another year in prison, he could have conditioned her “good behavior” “repentance” “contrition” and “remorse” for having lied to the police by being given the opportunity, under oath, to honor her dead child by telling what she knows about her disappearance and death. I would have asked her a million questions about when she last saw her daughter’s body, and what her attorney referred to as her “criminal intent” for lying. What was her criminal intent anyway (other than shielding herself from a confession that could be used against her). Anyway my wife disagreed with me that such pressure should have been put on Casey to reduce her sentence since, with double jeopardy she could not longer have any risk of testifying against herself and had no more Fifth Amendment protection. Legally I think I am correct but anyone have any opinions. Oh yeah, of course she could have still kept lying but her sentence should not then have been reduced for good behavior and lying to a Judge is contempt anyway, which could have been a new lie. (But does the intent to lie which is an attempt excuse you from telling the truth, since your lies would be testifing against yourself? I don’t think so but it is an interesting legal question, which Judge Perry, by letting Casey slide with “good behavior” there was no evidence of, never let us examine).
Gee Edmund, perhaps they could have simply waterboarded her a few times & dispensed with the whole trial thing altogether.
Surrogate parental persuasion by the judge to do the right thing is not water boarding. There was a camera in the courtroom and a raft of defense attorneys. Just how was Judge Perry going to water board her? Gee, what a stupid counter argument. (Every instance of waterboarding I heard of was done surreptitiously, not in public. Geez. Get a clue).
If you were not aware, people on the witness stand in Courts all over our great land get told by the Judge in very stern voices (that I have heard) to answer the questions posed to them all day long and hundreds of times a day. You are the first person I heard comparing that to waterboarding.
Asking a mother to explain how her daughter ended up in a carryall bag from her house with her father’s duct tape on her face, and dead in a swamp is no different from asking hundreds of other witnesses questions on the stand. The only reason prior to her conviction that Casey could not be forced to take the stand (actually she could — in the 50′s plenty of witnesses to HUAC took the Fifth, but they were still told to take the stand) is the constitutional protection against being forced to be a witness against yourself (the Fifth Amendment). My point was that once you are acquited and protected by double jeopardy (also from the Bill of Rights) your Fifth Amendment rights go away, or at least are moot. If a judge can sentence you to community service for your particular crime (and quasi celebrities are often sentenced to community service) what greater community service could Casey provide than telling us truthfully, under oath, and from the stand the judge called her to, what happened to her child? Refusal could be a contempt in which case she could sit in jail til she repudiated the lying she was convicted of by telling Judge Perry the truth. A little tricky for you to get but it works as substantial justice for me and has nothing to do with water boarding or torture. Would it get us any closer to the truth with a congenital liar like Casey, I don’t know. But I like the logic of it.
What was wrong? Try the fact that the prosecution blew the case. First, they sequestered the jury for 2 months, that means putting 16 people in jail (motel) against their will. That should never, ever happen. Second, this was a one week trial that they took 2 months to do. The reason for that is the fact the prosecution went for the death penalty when all they had was circumstantial evidence, anyone reading this could have been accused of the killing with what the prosecution had. So you go for a lighter sentence, like manslaughter or child endangerment, I know these were on the table but the blew it by inserting a capital offense. Then you don’t lie. That is right, the prosecution lied as much as the family. Try the cloroform for instance, look it up on the web. It is bleach and acetone. Two common chemical and bleach would certainly be in the woman’s car. But, cloroform would never be there as it is gone in one week, no residue except the basic bleach. Then think, do you really want the state to kill someone on circumstantial evidence?
I submited this article last week and you said that you were not going to play this theme any more, But look at all the interest in this trial..After reading all the comments carefully, I didnot see any more insightful than mine. Why the dismissal of my comments? Please reconsider…..Selwyn Mills
Casey Anthony and A Woman’s Right to Choose
The obvious commonsense rudiments of the Casey Anthony case are so glaring as to imply the need for all the participants, (the two legal teams, the judge, the audience in the courtroom, the TV viewers, everyone who has thought seriously about the case for the past three years)to be on another planet wearing blinders and ear plugs to be satisfied with the verdict.
1. Caylee a two year old was missing from her home or that of her grandparents for 31 days before she was reported missing.
2. The mother when questioned about why Casey did not report it sooner gave bold-faced lies to the police on eight different occasions. All statements upon investigation proved to be false.
3. During the six months it took to find Caylee’s body, Casey was out partying without apparent concern about Caylee’s whereabouts.
4. The body was found in the swamps wrapped in torn rags with evidence of pieces of duct tape around the facial area.
5. Casey’s car was examined and found to contain traces of chloroform and a trunk when opened by the officers had the distinct smell of death emanating from it.
6. All connected persons to the family were interrogated and found to be non-complicit except for Casey who was arrested and held in suspicion of murder.
7. The brother and father were tested for DNA compatibility with Caylee for possible paternity but found innocent . The name of the real father was never revealed to the public if in fact the prosecution had any information.
8. Casey accused her father George Anthony of sexually abusing her as a child. This was never confirmed and Casey’s record of pathological lying did not enhance her credibility.
9. The question of how Caylee died was difficult to determine because of the length of time her body was exposed to decomposition and so the forensic investigation was limited.
10. It was reported that the main explanation the defense used, of an accidentally drowning in the backyard pool was suspiciously similar to the case of a woman convict who was a cell neighbor of Casey’s during her incarceration. This was never given the weight of importance by the court and so the story of Caylee’s pool drowning seemed to be accepted by contending lawyers.
11. If that was what actually happened why was it not reported as an accident immediately? What was the complicity of Casey’s parents or who ever assisted her in disposing of the body? Was this investigated?
12. The State described Casey as a promiscuous woman and a cold-blooded killer who wanted to be free of maternal responsibilities. She used chloroform to sedate her daughter and suffocated her with duct tape. She then put her in the trunk of her car and went about partying and at some point dumped the dead body in a swamp only two miles from her home.
13. The defense claimed that Casey was the victim of abusive parents. That she and her father after a frantic search discovered Caylee in the backyard in an above ground pool floating dead in the water.
14. Obviously, there was forensic evidence missing from the case, there was no eye witness, no confession. The case was circumstantial as many are and so the lawyers gave their closing arguments and the jury was given the usual directions by the judge about “reasonable doubt”.
15. After 33 days of testimony, 400 pieces of evidence and more than 90 witnessess, the jury has reached a decision.
16. Casey was found not guilty of murder, child abuse and aggravated manslaughter, but convicted of misleading law enforcement.
About the Jury:
the verdict in the Casey Anthony case discussed me. the jury was made up of self- rightous morons who felt like they were doing something courageous but were at best incapable of using common sense, at worst setting themselves up for $$$ of articles, books, TV interviews.
The TV shots of the Defense team hugging, laughing, and celebrating reminded me of mobs of the Palestinians jumping up and down with joy when 3000 people were murdered at the World Trade Center. I am afraid our much admired jury system rather than pursuing truth is a source of enrichment for competitive teams of lawyers.
There was enough circumstantial evidence to bring in verdict of manslaughter or more specifically “babyslaughter” If there were minute to minute video tape of Casey’s activities for the last three years with details of what really happened to Caylee, the verdict would have been the same. As much as the jury’s reported courage in the face of mass disapproval was, when they came in with a not guilty verdict, I think they sensed that had they came in with a guilty verdict, the mass disapproval would have been even greater.
The issues that are important about the verdict surpass Casey and Caylee and the agonizing three year public exposure of the case. I believe the underlying themes of the trial are essentially political and psychological. With all the sensationalism of the “Mother kills two year old daughter”, isn’t this, when stripped of the shocking story really a belated issue of “Woman’s right to choose”? Aren’t millions of children to be, prevented from being born every year. Abortion is not illegal even in late term condition when an infant is fully developed and must be destroyed when a mother to be so wills it.
Women are not put on trial for changing their minds about maternity.
Another little acknowledged factor of the Casey trial is the nature of the indicted. If the mother had been an obese, unattractive woman who had been suspected of killing her daughter, she certainly would not have justified three years of media attention. Rather she would be immediately jailed and when there was an opening on the courts calendar, be assigned an inexperience public defender, be tried and convicted by a ambitious prosecutor who could use another notch on his belt. She would be quickly incarcerated and forgotten.
Had the defendant been an unemployed young man who was accused of killing his two year old child, again the
media and trial would have been of a different character. Even with the same lack of circumstantial evidence he probably would have gotten indicted for manslaughter.
But why would this have been true? Because young beautiful female celebrities do not usually get sentenced for murder and manslaughter. Why not? Because we have a celebrity culture in this country. In fact a wide spread celebrity cult in which the main players (not all) are young beautiful women who become fashion models, actresses, sex symbols and are perceive as “Bigger than Life”, Goddesses who command huge sums of money, power and influence. Sex sells. Society seldom kills the golden egg.
You would have done well in Salem a few hundred years ago. Certainly the mother did some things wrong and brought suspicion on herself. I feel that the mother is not very bright. But you can’t be excuted for stupidity or mental retardation. If something happened to one of my children the last people that I would call would be the cops because I would know that they would either do nothing or else begin building a case against me. As to partying, that is not an indication of murder, how do you handle the lose of a loved one, I have seen many different reactions and none are typical. But the fact is that the prosecution should have gone for a lesser charge and not played the trial out in the media.
Yes, comparing the Casey Anthony trial to the Salem trials, there’s a stretch. Why don’t you just invoke Godwin’s law and call the person a Nazi.
Justice – that is what established law is to produce. That’s what hangs in the balance. And in this case as in thousands of others, justice was not served. A two year old girl’s blood cries out with a perpetrator walking free.
So if we can just hide a body long enough to make forensic evidence moot, or not find a murder weapon, or fail to establish complete intent or means of death, not guilty? Well, isn’t that convenient for the thugs…
Anybody that doesn’t recognize Casey Anthony is an accessory to murder is a moron.
I don’t give a damn how many detectives, attorneys, jurors, law professors, and judges that pisses off. Your profession and reputation was also on trial in this spectacle. It failed miserably.
Of course, hiding the body is highly convenient to thugs! If you don’t have evidence that something happens, or if you do, and you can’t pin the evidence on the guilty party, then you shouldn’t be able to convict! But you would seem to have us to convict, even when the evidence is non-existent.
You seem to be more than willing to take the side of William Roper, in “A Man For All Seasons”:
WILLIAM ROPER: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
SIR THOMAS MORE: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
ROPER: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
MORE: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!
As for myself, I am willing to give the Devil the benefit of the law, even if it means that thousands of criminals will walk free among us. Otherwise, how many innocents will you punish, to capture those thousands of criminals? But then, if we are punishing innocents, can we truly say that justice is being served?
If no body had been found Anthony would have been found guilty. We have become so entranced with forensics that we have become blind to anything else.
Does anyone think the media would NOT sensationalize this trial? This is their bread and butter; Their ‘hood; their “territory”.
The media is getting their ‘rewards’ for their work on a daily basis.
Anyone that has access to, and reads the transcript, or has watched the trial on TV ‘live’ knows;
THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE DIRECTLY LINKING THE MOTHER TO THE DEATH OF THE LITTLE GIRL. PERIOD!
Even though there were “circumstances” that removed “doubt” about the mothers culpability, “circumstances”, in this case, were not cogent enough to conclude guilt.
Again; The media did a marvelous job; FOR ITSELF!
In your comparison of the Anthony case to the Simpson case, you neglected a very important component that was present in Simpson but absent from Anthony. In Simpson the lead detective and witness linked to some of the most important evidence in the case lied on the stand. That lie, destroyed the case and allowed Simpson’s attorney to make the case of reasonable doubt.
Actually, no. It was a case of jury nullification. The supposed misbehavior by the detective was not sufficient against the background of all the other evidence — if the jurors had the capacity for critical thinking. This unfortunate aspect of the case simply provided certain jurors with an excuse to pretend it constituted reasonable doubt; they were then able to logroll the other jurors into an acquittal verdict. The jurors had made up their minds even before Det. Furman’s issues were introduced.
The defense team’s efforts were a mastery of misdirection against the backdrop of a not fully competent prosecution team. Had the jurors been a sharper bunch with greater integrity and a greater mix of the citizenry, they would likely have voted to convict, or there would have been a mistrial.
Where is the group outcry from you ‘johnny justices’ when a wrongly convicted person is cleared after spending decades in prison because prosecutors and cops lied, hid evidence, manufactured evidence, conspired to frame or even ignored the known perpetrator? If you can’t condemn a system for producing a wrongful conviction why condemn it for not producing what you think is a rightful one?
When did it become acceptable to convict for capital murder on circumsancial evidence?
How far would you pervert justice to get your way because you ‘just know’ someone is guilty? I sure wouldn’t want a lot of you on any jury I had to face.
Circumstantial evidence is perfectly valid evidence that assumes rational people are examining it. Circumstantial evidence is not “flimsy” or “shoddy” by definition; that is one of the problems with how both jurors, jurists and lawyers misunderstand the term “circumstantial” these days. Apparently you misunderstand it as well. I’m not being critical of you, because you’ve simply absorbed the false jursprudence narrative that we live by these days.
“When did it become acceptable to convict for capital murder on circumsancial evidence?”
Scott Peterson case….convicted of captial murder using circumstantial evidence. I’m sure that’s not the only precedent.
The other issue that I didn’t see bought up was that prior to the trial..Casey Anthony, Cindy Anthony and the defense attempted to shift blame onto Casey’s ex-fiancee. They actually were planning to try and frame an innocent man for Caylee’s murder. Funny…one minute a “murder”, the next an “accident”.
Also, everyone forgets that the death penalty these days comes with a very long appeals process that stretches out for many years. This means that opportunities abound for someone genuinely innocent to prove his case. To me, if I were a juror, a shadow of a doubt would not stop me from voting to convict, even in a capital murder case.
There’s only one alternative to Circumstantial Evidence, and that is Eyewitness Evidence. Since most murders are committed absent of witnesses, it follows that most murderers are convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence.
Sometimes the circumstantial evidence is seriously flawed, and we are right in dismissing it. On the other hand, sometimes eyewitness evidence is seriously flawed, and we are wrong to accept it.
Do not dismiss circumstantial evidence just because it’s “circumstantial”. If collected correctly, it could be the most substantial evidence available!
If the “justice system” imprisoned me over 4th of July Weekend to listen to a poorly prepared prosecution summary following no evidence of his the child died, I would have been tempted to ‘stick it to the man’ on that basis alone.
Edit — “following no evidence of HOW the child died”
THERE’S BEEN ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE IN THIS WHOLE FARCE OF A TRIAL THAT’S BEEN BUGGING ME (NO PUN INTENDED)—WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO THAT PICTURE—MORE PROSECUTION EVIDENCE—ABOUT THE SYRINGE (WITH ALLEGED CHLOROFORM IN IT) LYING NEXT TO THAT GATORADE-TYPE OF BOTTLE? IT WAS SHOWN ABOUT ONE TIME, BUT THEN NEVER MENTIONED AGAIN! TOO BAD THAT ONE JUROR HAD TO HURRY & GET ON HIS VACATION CRUISE SO QUICKLY, TOO….THEY WERE TOO LAZY TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THE PROSECUTION EVIDENCE—CRAZY, CRAZY!!!!!
A rare and refreshing take on the trials end, that pretty much fits my perspective.
Didn’t this webpage used to allow you to sort posts by most recent first?
I agree with Jack Dunphy….
TAIN’T RIGHT…….
TAIN’T WRONG…….
JUST IS…….
Casey Anthony’s Missed Opportunity
Despite millions of opinions, only one person on the planet knows for certain whether Casey Marie Anthony murdered her 3 year old daughter, Caylee.
As Casey remains in hiding following her Sunday release she might be ruminating on what really happened three years ago but is certainly mulling over both her future options and her past mistakes.
Her future is cloudy at best.
Rumors are circulating she may study law or become a porn star, neither of which is probable. She has allegedly been offered a million dollars for a “tell all” story, her veracity to be confirmed via a polygraph. She can never again be tried for Caylee’s death due to strictures against double jeopardy and would have nothing to lose, except for what’s left of her reputation.
Innocent or not, she has already entered the annals of American criminal folklore, taking her place alongside Lizzie Borden, who was also acquitted. Illustrative of her new status, a Kentucky carnival featured a dunking booth and a Casey Anthony impersonator. For a buck a throw, attendees could register their own verdicts.
The “tasteless and tacky” attraction was shut down after a day, which is a gross understatement. (http://on.today.com/o4PPS5)
Impervious to understatement is the view that, in retrospect, the 25year old former party animal has made any number of critical mistakes in her short life.
Getting pregnant by a still undisclosed sperm donor has to be high on her error-list as are her gross misjudgments following Caylee’s mysterious disappearance. Entirely from the perspective of the grief she caused herself and a host of others, Casey Anthony must now and during her darkest hours contemplate how she could have avoided all that grief by aborting Caylee in the womb. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5049)
Great beat ! I would like to apprentice at the same time as you amend your website, how can i subscribe for a weblog site? The account aided me a appropriate deal. I have been tiny bit acquainted of this your broadcast offered shiny clear concept
That is very interesting, You are an overly professional blogger. I have joined your rss feed and stay up for in the hunt for more of your wonderful post. Additionally, I have shared your web site in my social networks