The internets exploded yesterday with the news of the acquittal of accused child-murderer Casey Anthony, and I confess to not having followed this story closely because (a) cable news is a cesspool and (b) trial coverage is incredibly boring. In real life, you never get the last minute arrival of a surprise witness (such things as evidence, witnesses, etc. have to be disclosed during discovery), a tearful confession under harsh cross-examination, or a lawyer who gets all heated up and hollers "this whole COURT is out of order!" I'd almost rather watch live coverage of a board meeting for the McDonald's Corporation because then at least there's a chance to find out if they're going to start selling beer at their stores.
From what I glean, there was significant circumstantial evidence indicating that Casey Anthony had a hand in the murder of her kid, such as the dead baby smell in her car trunk, numerous lies told to the authorities, and waiting over a month to report her child missing. However, the jury seemed to find--and not unjustifiably, it would seem--that while this evidence demonstrated both weird behavior and some criminality (such as hampering an investigation), it didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey was guilty of murder.
What seems to rankle most people who have followed this trial is the following:
1) Casey was partying like some Shore Trash shortly after her kid disappeared. Tasteless!
2) No one should ever trust anyone with a first name for a last name and vice versa. So keep an eye on new Senator Rand Paul.
3) She named her kid "Caylee" which we all know is supposed to be spelled "Kaley". That alone should be considered child abuse.
So we have what appears pretty clearly to be a horrible person, who hampered a police investigation, perhaps making it impossible to determine who killed the kid. We have a person who also very likely murdered her kid. But prosecutors have to prove their case to a high standard before we can convict anyone of murder, and it's better to maintain that standard even if it means that people like Ms. Anthony can walk free.
Envelopes – Essential Buyers Manuals
7 years ago
I've spent a lot of time in courtrooms (as a reporter, not a defendant) and if there's one thing I've learned it's this: If the prosecutors show up mostly sober, put on a moderately cogent case the jury will usually give them the benefit of the doubt and usualy vote to convict. When a prosecutor in a case as high profile as this one puts on crappy case in chief, it usually means they didn't have a case in the first place and the jury will vote to acquit.
ReplyDeletePeople can make all the jokes they want about being "judged by 12 people who couldn't get out of jury duty," but I've found jury usually get things right.