.
I was stunned at the verdict, weren't you? I am still stunned. I can't believe a jury of my peers, your peers, found her guilty of nothing worse than telling a lie. If the jury didn't think she was guilty of even aggravated child abuse, what do they think she was lying about, I wonder?I have heard many news reporters say it was the prosecution's fault -- they just didn't have enough evidence. I find that hard to believe. Everyone I have spoken to today finds it hard to believe. I wasn't in the courtroom but I do think the trial was fairly well reported and I felt there was enough evidence. I wonder what is considered to be reasonable doubt in this day and age? Possibly in our video-heavy culture, without a picture, maybe jurors had a hard time connecting the dots. Personally I think there was enough evidence to find her guilty of at least aggravated child abuse. Her daughter disappeared and she lied about it. That stinks.
I am sad for little Caylee. A system failed her. Maybe her family "system," maybe it was society, I think both. Somewhere she got lost and it seems she is the only one who lost in this whole stinking mess. I was not in favor of the death penalty in this trial because I don't think Casey Anthony was a danger to any one else, but I do think she needed to spend the rest of her life in prison. Even if (and I don't think it's possible) her daughter's death was an accident, she had something to do with it and she lied and pretended it wasn't happening. Even today in the courtroom she was giggling and laughing with her attorneys. But her daughter is still dead.
.
When my husband, who is a prosecutor here in PA, called to tell me the verdict, I was stunned as well. We've been discussing it on and off all night. He keeps trying to get me to understand that the jury can't convict if they think someone is guilty. They can only convict if they think the prosecution PROVED that they are guilty. I can appreciate the importance of our adversarily system, but it still hurts my heart.
ReplyDelete*Adversarial... My little fingers just couldn't correctly keep up...
ReplyDeleteOur justice system is a double-edged sword, Kristina. Most of the time is works to my satisfaction, but there are instances when I think it stinks. Yesterday it stunk. I understand the jury's position, but I'm not sure in this day and age that they get reasonable doubt. Whose reason, huh? I think twenty years ago she would have been found guilty, at least of manslaughter. I think with our television-heavy diet, folks have lost their ability to appreciate real forensics and real evidence. I guess the prosecutor underestimated the influence of today's culture.
ReplyDeleteApparently it's called the "CSI Effect". Jurors today are waiting for that forensic evidence that is a slam dunk, like on TV shows. Just another example of how television plays to big a role in our lives.
ReplyDeleteHello,
ReplyDeleteI read your blog everyday but don't comment that often.
I have been reading the comments about the verdict. Now don't get me wrong ladies. I have no idea what really happened to this little girl, and if her mother really murdered her. As a mother myself, I think there is plenty of evidence to convince us all that Casey Anthony was a terrible mother. Yet, when I listen to all the evidence and read through what Casey Anthony was actually charged with I think the jury made the right call. I do not believe in any way it was proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that she committed murder or even aggravated child abuse. Had she been charged with child neglect, certainly the evidence was there in my opinion, but not enough for these other charges. All the evidence was circumstantial and really did not conclusively implicate Casey. My emotions certainly want to agree with you but in my opinion the evidence presented just was not compelling enough to be beyond a shadow of doubt.
Jan,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your comment, and your point of view.
I think, however, you prove my point in your own words "beyond a shadow of a doubt." The prosecution is to prove without REASONABLE doubt, not beyond a shadow of a doubt. There can be doubt, in fact there probably almost always is some doubt. Unless the jurors actually see the crime, which never happens, there must be some doubt. But reasonable doubt offers some flexibility -- whose reason are we referring to? My reasonable doubt may be different from yours, and based on the reaction from everyone I have spoken to, those jurors had different reason than most people.
In my opinion the judge was not clear in his instruction. I believe he led the jury to believe that if they had doubt they could not convict. Who doesn't have doubt -- I doubt my own self every day.
I apologize for using the wrong term but I still respectfully will have to agree to disagree with you. I feel that this argument holds even under the standard of reasonable doubt. The evidence, in my opinion, is quite lacking and leaves room for plenty of doubt. I also do not think the judge made a mistake in his instructions to the jury. It is very clear in our system of justice that when we convict a person of a crime that a juror should be compelled by the evidence presented that the accused is guilty. Not what he/she feels or thinks but based on the the evidence. There is too much about this evidence that leaves doubt, way beyond a shadow or what is reasonable in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteAs I stated earlier I won't annoy you and continually repost with arguments. I will accept your difference of opinion and move on agreeing to disagree!
Have a great day!
I agree Barbara...that poor little girl's family failed her, her mother failed her first and foremost and now the justice system...I believe it has everything to do with that family and in time the truth will emerge...I have a deep feeling we haven't heard the end of Casey Anthony...and maybe in months, or years to come, peace and justice will both come full circle for the precious little person of Caylee...Blessings, Denise
ReplyDeleteI watched every minute of the trial on the uninterrupted online feed and am shocked and outraged that there was not one juror that found her guilty of something beyond lying. I agree that I don't believe the jury understood what a "reasonable doubt" was, especially after Mason's kind of distorted explanation of it. And once Baez brought up the accidental drowning, despite no proof, I think they had their doubts. But honestly, to not even hold her accountable for dumping that precious baby in the woods is just sad. :(
ReplyDeleteMy question always come back to this one: what did that woman think she had to lie for/about?!?
ReplyDeleteI don't know if the mom did it or not--but I do suspect that someone in that household knows who did. To some degree, they are all guilty of something.
ReplyDeleteMy heart breaks for the child.
Yep, I didn't see that one coming and it's shocking that she's getting away with it. Her demeanor in the courtroom did not look like she was a grieving mother. She needs much prayer!
ReplyDelete