previous post next post  

Let the excoriation begin...

 Contrarian view - Casey Anthony verdict vindicates, in a larger sense, the intent of the criminal trial system.

Caylee has not yet seen justice, certainly. And, perhaps, never will. But if that's true - that's the failure of the state, and not a knock on the defense.

The state had a pretty good position going in: Anthony was an unsympathetic defendant, accused of about the worst of crimes, killing a child essentially because they were inconvenient; she was convicted by the media, which shaped the public mood (and fed off of it - it was a symbiotic relationship - one I think points to a canker on our public soul, but I won't go down that path here). She didn't have a "dream team" of defense lawyers, bankrolled by a fortune (of course, she didn't have public defenders, either), no novel legal theories were floated - only the most basic: make the state prove their case to a jury. Not concoct arcane legal theories - simply make the state *prove* their case, in accordance with the rules of procedure and evidence.

Put another way - assume the verdict is correct, and that it was you in the dock. Isn't that how you would have wanted it to come out? Isn't this how you would expect it to come out?

This wasn't OJ, hinging on celebrity and the arcana of DNA evidence with a judge flummoxed by a high-priced legal team.

This was... us in the dock. And I would hope a jury would reach the same verdict in any case where the prosecution didn't prove it's case.

There is no perfect legal system. I admit I prefer one where the risk falls to the state, vice the defendant. I'm not a Napoleonic Code kind of fellow.


I agree.  I do believe she killed her baby, and for the suspected reasons.  However, given that the State could not even provide a cause of death, I fail to see how they thought they could prove Malice Murder with Aforethought in this case.  The simplest defense would simply say "she died and I buried her".  Sure, you could charge her with mishandling of human remains or something, but that'd be it.  The fact that her defense went with an all or nothing call is dumb in my mind (given the risks involved with losing the jury), but it worked out because this jury took their instructions seriously.  Good for them.

Plus, I have no fear that one way or another, Justice will be served (one of the benefits of having faith in an afterlife), and I even believe it to be likely that this stupid woman will end up pulling an OJ and getting herself locked away for something else somewhere in the future.
So much for media objectivity, as if any of us thought otherwise...  As I told Her Accuracy, we don't know what the jury heard, we only know what the media told us.  Given the length of deliberations, I don't think there was much doubt in the jurors minds. 
If she killed her kid, then from what I've seen, the State failed to make that case effectively. Certainly that is the opinion of the Jury.

The people up in arms because "What about x? She killed that kid, I know it!!!' were obviously not on the jury.

This is how it's supposed to work. it doesn't mean the woman is innocent, all it means is that the case against her was not adequate to convict her. People forget that's how it's supposed ot work.
People forget that's how it's supposed ot work.   And, that in the end, that's how they *want* it to work.
Just a thought,

The standard is "beyond a *reasonable* doubt, not "any doubt". How many have actually sat on the jury? It is not as easy as it sounds.  
Innocent until PROVEN guilty...

The media may want it otherwise, but thank God for a country that can still get it right in spite of that gaggle of morons.

When the media begins making our decisions in both macro and micro scale issues, it is a frightening indication that we are in a death spiral down to oblivion as a nation.

May be that this is a small indication of better days to come...
No excoriation from me, and no so-called "objective opinions" on her guilt or innocence, either. Our right to trial by jury in this Nation means we don't have to make those opinions, and if we do, they are about as valuable as stink on poo.

Opinions on surrounding issues? Sure.

Item: this was a media circus. It shouldn't have gotten any press outside of Orlando, but the farging media thinks we're actually excited about the details of these cases. I'm not. I watch TeeVee for information that is of use to ME, and the information presented about this trial is not of the slightest interest to me.

Bread and circuses. We're no different than the ancient Romans. Our fate will likely be the same as well.
The prosecution did not prove its case against a defense that was, apparently, "My child died accidentally, so I wrapped her body in plastic and duct tape, and hid it where I thought nobody would find it."

As a lawyer once told me, "The purpose of a trial isn't to see that justice is done, it's to insure that the law is satisfied. Never confuse justice with the law -- the two usually don't coincide."
I've been having a discussion with acquantances over this case, and they're holding the position that this is "news" because she's "young, white and pretty."  It is my contention that it's news because "she killed a baby."  Yes, yes, I know... she was acquitted of charges.  By what I can tell, I'd have voted to acquit as well.  I still think she did it, and very little will convince me otherwise.  It's now between her and God (and most likely the community shunning she's about to get).  And Rivrdog is right, it has zero bearing on my life.  I will never meet this woman, and she will most likely never have any impact on my life.  But then, very little news does.
No one has yet mentioned what I consider to be the essential hard nut that had to be cracked by the prosectution. : Many citizens oppose (to a very large extent) the concept of having a death penalty in any legal business. The revulsion evident when  one has a locallly celebrated situation is mighty.
In itself this presents the authorities with a super heavy burden to overcome should they attempt to conduct a  case with a flimsey evidence trail.    "Reasonable Doubt"  seems to be tossed out the window in such situations.  "Absolute Certainty" prevails.
The local defense attorney in my Rotary club thinks the Prosecution over-charged for the evidence they had.

If they had gone for a lesser charge, they might well have won - though she agrees with me that the prosecution didn't do their job well in this case.

That said, the rest of her comments would nestle comfortably with what Cap'n Bill said.
May no one fret - Dexter is on her case.
 Yeah, Bill. If there were justice in this life I would be maximum ruler of the world supllying free ammo for the "2nd on the 4th" at The Armorers domicile with mandatory attendance at Knob Creek for all liberuls.

What Bill said. Too many strange "coincidences."

I have a feeling the prosecution should just stayed home on this one. Given the state of the would never be able to show how the child died and that pretty much put paid to a murder conviction.

Prosecutors have gotten pretty arrogant over the last 30 years. Nifong was not atypical among that bunch, just the loudest. Other than the PTR disaster, Nifong didn't do anything that prosecutors all over don't so. For Fed prosecutors it's even worse.
QM - you get my vote, with your version of "...a chicken in every pot, a car in every garage, a boatload of bullets for every gun!"
I followed this sporadically when she was missing, then dead, and when it came to trial.  It is an unspeakable crime; to kill one's own child.  I have no words except that I believe in a just God.  If she did not get justice in this life; she will in the next.  
You just can't convict someone of "Murder One" with no cause of death and only circumstantial evidence.
The whole country is screaming:"We know she's guilty! Why didn't the jury?"
To that I say; Can you prove it, beyond a reasonable doubt?
Otherwise, STFU!

  Karma plays a long, slow game with those who upset her. She never loses, either.
I've been hearing "the prosecution overcharged", too.  But, did she not also get acquitted of a manslaughter charge, as well?
The prosecutor was less competent than he considered himself:
The most compelling piece of evidence the prosecution had, he said, was Caylee’s remains. “I can only assume that the jurors didn’t see what I saw in the pictures of the remains,” Ashton said.
According to one of the local radio talkers, she was going out partying while her little kid was missing. She's an un-natural cat, at least.  I recall reading somewhere that about 35% of women have no natural talent when it comes to Mommitude, and should either take instruction, or not reproduce in the first place. 
She was aquitted of several crimes that all involved some sort of premeditation or intent or willingness to kill. My guess is that if she had been charged with negligent homicide of a child she might have been convicted. I really don't know if I believe she killed her child; I can imagine it being an accidental death, and some of her subsequent behavior being driven by psychological defenses repressing and denying that accident, not only to the police but to herself.

"If you want a decision, go to court; if you want justice, go to church" is an old saying that has much good in it.

I think the jury came to close to the best decision they could.
P.s. Sorta like that Mehitabel kitteh.
An interesting discussion we're having here at this time. The only things that  this jury can consider are the those things which are shown or stated while the Court is in session, with the judge presiding.  If any of this, so-called, “chatter”, had any merit at all, they would have said it in Court, under oath. But, that also means that they would also be cross examined by the defense attorney. The defendant always has the right to challenge their accusers.

But for the record, there has been some real life wisdom from this thread.

From htom,  we get an important principle. “If you want a decision, go to court; if you want justice, go to church”. I agree with you, “is an old saying that has much good in it.”

From the “diplomatic wisdom” of ChrisP,  we get this,  in reply to those screaming for a conviction. “To that I say; Can you prove it, beyond a reasonable doubt? Otherwise, STFU!”

To Miss Ladybug, my personal opinion is the prosecutor had an opinion and that is what led the investigation. It should always be, the evidence leads the investigation. I believe the prosecutor was way out of his league for a conviction of murder one or manslaughter. The evidence was just NOT there and therefore, an acquittal was appropriate.
 Yeah, but you'll never bring a murderer to justice in church. You can only ask God to ease the pain of the injustice. The acquittal may have been correct, but it wasn't right. 
 All of us will one day stand before God and he will judge us according to our works. That day, beyonf any doubt, justice will be done, and there is no appeal from His court. Caylee will get justice.

You're spot on Grumpy.
 A “Not–Guilty” verdict does NOT equal “Innocent”.  
Scottish law used to allow a third verdict: Not Proven.
htom - NONE of us want the justice that might be found in church.  Give me mercy and grace everytime. Having said that, I'm glad I haven't had to face the media circus for myself and friends/loved ones. Circus Maximus, for sure.  ML