-
Eugenic Abortion 2.0
May 23, 2013 | 67 comments
-
Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment
May 22, 2013 | 154 comments
-
Obama’s Far Left Hand
May 15, 2013 | 133 comments
-
The Left’s Captive Mind
May 8, 2013 | 85 comments
-
A Sportscaster Comes Out As Christian
May 1, 2013 | 291 comments
The Nation's Pulse
American Justice
A bad week for prosecutors.
Casey Anthony’s defense attorneys punctuated their successful defense of a party girl by high-fiving each other and partying openly at a restaurant near the courthouse. Casey Anthony couldn’t come along, but one day soon will be free to join in the revelry.
This has been a good week for defense attorneys and a dismal one for prosecutors. In New York, it appears that Dominique Strauss-Kahn will not face charges after prosecutors prematurely accepted the testimony of a hotel maid whose credibility is now shot. Her record of lying is approaching that of Casey Anthony’s.
America’s initial egalitarian pride over the incident-pundits gushed for days over how wonderful it is that the country has a system of justice in which the charge of a lowly hotel maid can cause police to pull a powerful international politican off a plane minutes away from take-off-now looks quite foolish.
The prosecutors in Florida don’t belong in the same category of incompetence as New York City District Attorney Cy Vance Jr., but they too suffered a stinging defeat. Not worse than the one in the O.J. trial (Marcia Clark, one of the blundering prosecutors in that case, is self-servingly making that claim), but still a pretty devastating one.
The case, as some observers have noted, may have been lost during jury selection. The defense managed to get on the jury a woman who said “I don’t like to judge people.” A juror like that probably wouldn’t have been convinced even if a picture of Casey Anthony suffocating her daughter with duct tape had surfaced.
By their own admission, the prosecutors had a tricky, “dry-bones” case on their hands. Still, they gave the jury plenty of evidentiary dots to connect, at least for murder in the second degree. As the prosecutors pointed out, who makes an innocent accident look like a murder? The haste with which jury deliberations ended suggests jurors weren’t all that concerned about wrestling with such questions.
Respect for juries seems to have grown since the days of the Rodney King trial. After that jury acquitted the police officers in the case, pundits and pols across the board, including the president at the time, George Bush Sr., felt free to question the jury’s judgment. The jury was basically faulted for not providing the country with an emotionally satisfying verdict. The complexity and insufficiency of evidence in that case didn’t stop the chattering class from trashing the jurors.
The jury in the Casey Anthony trial has received more evenhanded treatment. Some in the media have blasted the jurors, but many have argued that they weighed the evidence carefully and felt that it didn’t meet the high standard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
It is true that saying Casey Anthony is not guilty under an exacting legal standard and saying with certitude that she is innocent are two different things, though it is not clear if this distinction was in the minds of jurors. Alternate juror Russell Huekler says with confidence that “she did not get away with murder,” which goes beyond simply saying that the prosecution failed to prove its case. It will be interesting to see if Huekler’s attitude is representative of the views of the acting jurors. If so, they will be faulted for a level of sympathy with Casey Anthony that defies the evidence.
Huekler also said that he didn’t think Anthony had a motive to kill her daughter: “We … kept waiting to see what was the motive — just because Casey was a party girl did not show why she would possibly, you know, kill Caylee.” But is the prosecution’s theory really inconceivable in modern America? In a country where children not that much younger than Caylee Anthony are routinely aborted on grounds of convenience and freedom, Casey Anthony’s alleged motive isn’t impossible to imagine.
About the Author
George Neumayr, a contributing editor to The American Spectator, is co-author, with Phyllis Schlafly, of the new book, No Higher Power: Obama’s War on Religious Freedom.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (175) | Leave a comment
More Articles by George Neumayr
More Articles From The Nation's Pulse
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/07/07/american-justice
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Kitty| 7.7.11 @ 6:19AM
Alternate juror Russell Huekler also called Casey Anthony a "loving mother." How can any woman be a "loving mother" who admittedly never reported her daughter missing. The grandmother was the one who made that frantic 911 call.
This is the age of Obama, a president who believes in post-birth abortion:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/w.....-media-mum
Sandy| 7.7.11 @ 7:30AM
The alternate also said that he was "shocked" that the nation was so outraged at the jury verdict. Frankly this guy gives me the creeps, and he seems to be from that part of society that has been dumbed down, incapable of logically and rationally looking at the entire case, circumstances and evidence, but who knew exactly how to cash in on his media statements and appearances. Because his words almost mimicked Jose Baez's opening statements, he is clearly incapable of internal personal thought or reasoning. And, this is who we are to rely on for justice? The system fell apart when the lawyers were allowed to pick and choose jurors based on who they believed would give them the verdict they wanted, rather than who would seek the truth.
A. C. Santore| 7.7.11 @ 8:20AM
He's the juror who took "copious notes."
Book deal imminent.
Book promotion started.
Grzmlyk| 7.7.11 @ 9:52AM
I believe Russell Huekler works for the government. Is it any wonder he could be so wrong-headed with such breezy confidence?
I served on a jury in Brooklyn back in the 1980s. It was an eye-opening experience. In what I thought was an open-and shut case (a simple drug possession beef), all of the jurors except me and one other guy - a hasidic Jew from Williamsburg - thought the defendant was not guilty; he was Hispanic and the rest of the jury was either hispanic or black.
Why did they think he was not guilty? Because central to the prosecution's case was the testimony of the two cops who chased the perp down and eventually caught him red-handed. And, with the exception of we two holdouts, every single person on that jury thought the cops were lying. Why? "Because cops always lie." That was it. There was zero evidence that the cops were lying and, in fact, given the specifics of the case, in order for them to be lying you'd have to believe a complex sequence of events took place instead of what they said occurred - a sequence of events that strained credulity to the breaking point.
We eventually convinced the other jurors to vote "guilty" - after we broke for dinner and all of us sat together in a restaurant talking about our lives, our kids, etc (we were prohibited from talking about the case outside the deliberation room); the jurors began to see past skin color and classist resentment and view each other, and the facts of the case, in a far more circumspect way. We voted guilty not long after we reconvened. Facts and logic triumphed over prejudice.
Human beings are not rational - witness liberalism - and, in spite of our hubristic confidence that we live in an enlightened era, replete with scientific sophistication and epistemological expertise, the truth is that, 99.9% of the time, human beings - and, by extension, juries - base their conclusions not on empirical evidence, but on how they unconsciously view the evidence through the prism of prejudice (and, in OJ's case, it wasn't unconscious at all; it was a finger in the eye of the "white" establishment). This is why so many scientists, politicians and laypeople embrace the religion of global warming.
And so it is that one of life's supreme ironies is that it is this very "closed-minded," "bigoted" "prejudice" that liberals think they are escaping at the very moment they are engaging in the most closed-minded, bigoted and prejuduced behavior in weaving the little NPR cocoons of vaunted egalitarianisam, social justice and tolerance from which they insulate themselves from cause-and-effect reality.
The other point of confusion for jurors is what constitutes "reasonable" doubt. I do believe that a prosecution has to make its case; as a spectator, I am free to shout "guilty" at my TV the day the arrest is made; as a juror, I would make every effort to be more discerning in evaluating the case as it is put forward (hopefully aware of my own prejudices).
I am satisfied, from my vantage point of watching the occasional recap at night or reading the occasional story online, that the prosecution met its burden; the amazing number of red herrings the defense threw out, the behavior of the defendant, the history of sociopathic behavior, the smell in the car, and, perhaps the most damning, the duct tape on the skull - tell me that this woman is a homicidal monster. Most cases, after all, are circumstantial in nature. Very rarely are cases even brought to trial that involve irrefutable smoking guns.
Casey Anthony will prosper - she'll have her porn career, she'll write a book and do the talk show rounds, maybe get a reality show that breifly spikes in the ratings.
And then she'll fade into obscurity, she'll age past the point where being a professional party girl is feasible and she will be left alone with her pathology, ultimately abandoned by those who can no longer make a dime off of her.
After a brief moment in the sun, the rest ofher life will not be pretty. It ain't the lethal injection she deserves, but it's something.
Couldn't happen to a nicer gal.
John Navratil| 7.7.11 @ 10:34AM
Grzmlyk,
Well put, sir.
cuban pete| 7.7.11 @ 3:19PM
As always, well put indeed!!
John II| 7.7.11 @ 3:36PM
Hear, hear, Grzzy. Damn.
Jim G.| 7.8.11 @ 2:03PM
Great reply. I too served on a jury some time ago, but in Chicago. After that experience, the scariest words in the English language (for me) are "judged by a jury of your peers." The case was about a woman who died, and before she did, appointed her sister as executor of her estate. Well, the dead woman had "friends", who decided, for themselves, that the dead woman would "want" them to have her things, everything from her Bible to her car, so they just went in and took them! When the executor sister complained, the trial resulted. Well, the case could not have been more open & shut - the "friends" had no proof that the dead woman had wanted them to have the things they took. One of the "friends" was a previously convicted thief, and despite this, it took me (the foreman of the jury) and one other juror to convince the rest that, despite the heart-string tugging photos of the dead woman and a couple of the "friends", the stuff was legally the dead woman's, and since she had appointed her the excecutor, now the woman's sister's to dispose of.
We finally did, and had a unanimous jury finding of guilt, which I reported to the judge. The "friends'" attorney decided to poll the jury, I guess hoping for a Hail Mary change in one juror's vote, and when he got to one of the jurors who was a Jesuit (Society of Jesus), the man said he still voted guilty, but he wanted the Bible returned to the thief!!! I've never met a group of people who were less intelligent, and less minful of the FACTS (not emotions) when making a decision. I can't imagine such a group deciding on whether a person gets a long jail term or a lethal injection. Very scary!
KyMouse| 7.7.11 @ 9:37AM
A few years ago, I interviewed our city's chief medical examiner for a newspaper article. Among other things, she said what I've heard other experts saying this week -- that today's jurors expect every ME's office to have the gee-whiz gizmos that are depicted on TV shows such as the "CSI" franchise.
And when that kind of equipment isn't available, many jurors decide that the prosecution hasn't provided enough evidence to prove its case.
Great news for criminals.
Alan Brooks| 7.7.11 @ 2:53PM
If she were innocent she would be crying on-camera for the killer to be apprehended. A reward would have been offered by someone. But bringing abortion into it is a cheap shot by the author-- abortion has become nothing more than a wedge issue and the more you press the issue, the more it will be ignored.
But go ahead, waste your time.
CarolZ| 7.8.11 @ 8:13AM
"bringing abortion into it is a cheap shot by the author"----this is just another burp of gas by a supercilious and condescending male with little wisdom on the matter.
Alan Brooks| 7.8.11 @ 10:32AM
So women aren't that way?
CarolZ| 7.8.11 @ 4:27PM
Gee, take a logic course---you are committing the fallacies of tu quoque and red herring. Legalized abortion is the central scandal of our time as the
wise know. But, keep your blinders on - - - -, Carol
alice moore| 7.7.11 @ 6:37AM
I can't help thinking that the jurors would have been harder on her if she had not been attractive. This is not surprising to me. We have a significant portion of the electorate that is an OJ Juror.
Mike Hawk| 7.7.11 @ 7:01AM
I do not find the witch attractive. Neither do any of my associates.
Wayne | 7.7.11 @ 12:31PM
I think if she were a single father, she would be on death row.
skip| 7.8.11 @ 7:36AM
She is hideous.
Alan Brooks| 7.8.11 @ 10:35AM
Yeah, the way she looks so very happy even though her child is dead-- makes you think they never bonded at all.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 7.7.11 @ 6:58AM
All three cases mentioned in the article had something in common, the collectivist mind set where rights and perceptions are based on your gender and race.
The white male was guilty until proven innocent.
The black male was innocent though obviously guilty. Several jurors claimed they were afraid of possible riots if OJ was convicted.
The white female who couldn't be bothered to report a child missing for 31 days is now being looked upon as a loving mother.
It's the end game in a society who claims equality but promotes racial and gender winners and losers under federal law.
It's all an affront to the Constitution and is no less then we deserve under the circumstances.
Al Adab| 7.7.11 @ 1:14PM
Oh yes, Bill. We must descriminate to prove that all are equal. That is why the true racists are those who view every issue through that prism, and they are on the left.
Alan Brooks| 7.7.11 @ 2:54PM
"The black male was innocent"
Is Roman Polanski white, Mr. Stalin?
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 7.7.11 @ 6:23PM
Roman Polanski fled the country. You can do that regardless of your gender or race. However to follow through on your point, the federal government still wanted him.
On the other hand, there was Elizabeth Morgan who accused her husband of sexually abusing their daughter. It was generally agreed she was a psycho but that didn't stop her family from fleeing to New Zealand with the child while Elizabeth Morgan languished in jail for contempt.
The U.S. Congress passed a bill specifically releasing Elizabeth Morgan and allowing Hillary (the child) to return and not see the father. The husband was never indicted or proven to do anything wrong and sued and had the law overturned since in fact it was a Bill of Attainder, singling him out for punishment without trial.
Appleby| 7.7.11 @ 7:00AM
My sister was recently a jury foreman, and she said that it was very hard to make the jurors focus on only the evidence presented; they speculated and opined and *what-if* and *how about* were often heard.
However, I am convinced that, as my Southern Granny used to say, there are two who know the truth: Casey Anthony knows and God knows. God will be her judge, now or later. And one day the truth will out.
Teaghan| 7.7.11 @ 8:17AM
I must add one to that mix. Little Caylee knows as well.
John Navratil| 7.7.11 @ 9:13AM
Appleby,
The postman always rings twice.
POST American| 7.7.11 @ 7:06AM
---'90's Show'/ Tavistock Institute DIS-traction
and demoraization op ALERT!---
Focusing on the hideously misfortunate among us,
however that breaks down, ---while the TREASON
op pumps hellward ----and the lives of, quite literally,
BILLIONS are in the hands
of unrepentant, indeed, psycho-path-IK-ly
zealous EUGENISTS ---speaks for itself.
Richard| 7.7.11 @ 7:45AM
Ideological nonsense, cut and pasted to fit the issue of this 48 hour news cycle.
Wraparound cable news coverage convinced great numbers of people who did not serve on the jury and sit through the trial that Casey Anthony was guilty.
Proving a case that depends on forensics is difficult. Witness credibility, jury instructions, and -yes - the competence of the legal teams each likely played a role. But the thought that this particular case 'proves' anything about the viability of the jury trial system or the state of American culture is nothing more than talk radio mouth breathing in search of the next 15 minute segment.
cuban pete| 7.7.11 @ 9:22AM
Well said, Richard.
I did not watch any of this as my television viewing is limited to watching college sports and major league baseball with the sound turned off.
Steve A| 7.7.11 @ 10:13AM
cuban, Yankees / Indians with the mute button or maybe Verlander dealing it to the Angels is the way to go. You are a wise man.
cuban pete| 7.7.11 @ 11:30AM
Thanks, Steve A.
As a White Sox fan I could use some help from the Yankees and the Angels against the others in the AL Central.
Steve A| 7.7.11 @ 2:45PM
You need Dunn to start earning some of that $$.
cuban pete| 7.7.11 @ 3:24PM
The worst slump I have ever seen in over 60 years of having the Pale Hose break my heart.
(With the notable exceptions of '59 and 2005.)
I recall one year Robin Ventura started off 0 for 55.
skip| 7.8.11 @ 10:44AM
Lolich. Morris. Verlander. I've been fortunate. I don't think any other team can put up three starters of this caliber over the last 40 years.
rick| 7.11.11 @ 2:00PM
You might be right, Richard.
Or, you might be like the jurors that spoke - breezily wrong.
Help me with something I wonder about, Richard. If Cayce did not kill her little girl, who was the dead body in the trunk of her car?
Should we look for a second missing person?
A. C. Santore| 7.7.11 @ 8:19AM
Kind of an aside, but they needed another verdict in addition to "guilty" or "not guilty," and that is "not proven."
At least that would have prevented Jose Baez from saying that she is "innocent."
The dead girl was "innocent."
Bill| 7.7.11 @ 10:05AM
The verdict of "Not Guilty" means "Not Proven."
That's because being Not Guilty does NOT mean being innocent.
Doctor_X| 7.7.11 @ 8:31AM
For some strange reason every time I’ve been interviewed by lawyers in a jury selection I am dismissed as soon as I say “I have graduate degrees in….” I never get to finish, they just cut me off and dismiss me.
Oh well at least it makes for a short day at the courthouse.
McCandles| 7.7.11 @ 9:33AM
Liberals, politicians, and trial lawyers LOVE the ignorant masses. Makes their jobs secure and easy.
Michael L. Hauschild| 7.7.11 @ 4:16PM
When they asd about organizations I mention the NRA first. Absolutely the truth, and they have never picked me once.
Die Fledermaus| 7.7.11 @ 6:12PM
I just tell them I listen to Rush Limbaugh and read this magazine! lol
LMajito| 7.7.11 @ 9:16AM
the charge was of murder in the 1st degree...of this charge, there wasn't enough evidence...but as juror #3 stated, not guilty does not mean inocent...it only means there was not enough proof that mom killed the daughter with pre-meditation...
not reporting it missing and such has nothing to do with intent to and killing...who is the guy who knows what women think? as a matter of fact who is the woman who accurately can tell what other women are thinking??
if mom fell asleep and little girl went outside the backyard, went up the stairs and fell into the pool does this means mom wanted to kill her with pre-meditation?
i was not part of the jury, was not secuestered and did not hear/saw the whole evidence so my opinion in this matter is biased and off, just like the rest of the ones posting comments in here...
why did the jurors did not believe the grandpa? juror #3 gave the answer...according to her, he was not honest in his answers.
amazingly, a juror consultant who was part of the OJ dream team had a study on this issue with a pool of potential jurors and they decision was the same as the jury: not guilty of murder in the first degree...
Wayne | 7.7.11 @ 12:34PM
There was no evidence whatsoever about a drowning in the pool. None.
florin| 7.7.11 @ 2:31PM
I have felt that Cayley's death was an accident but now that you mention that her mouth was taped....why would that be? If the baby died by accident, why would her mouth be taped???
rick| 7.11.11 @ 2:06PM
Ahhh, lesser charges with no premeditation were right in front of them on the verdict sheet.
They essentially voted that it was not proven she had any involvement whatsoever.
The pre-meditation, the death penalty excuse - non of it has any relevance to the bizarre verdict.
You would have made a good juror. Home in time for the weekend.
I wonder how many jurors paid their respects at the burial site?
I was being coy. I do not wonder.
Stan Redmond| 7.7.11 @ 9:30AM
It is a sad slide in to mob and media rule we now have in this country. We already have mob and media rule from Obama. I fear we now have mob and media juries.
Peppermint Tea| 7.7.11 @ 9:41AM
"Not guilty" was a victory for individual freedom. The media can try a person, and convict them, but fortunately, the State still has to get by the jury process. They have to produce the evidence, which in this case they did not. When they come after us libertarians, I hope the jury system will bail us out.
Did Kasey murder? We will eventually find out because as O.J. demonstrated, character is destiny.
rick| 7.11.11 @ 2:11PM
Oh yeah. I'm on the edge of my seat. I surely hope we eventually find out who murdered Caylee.
I also hope we find out who that dead body in the trunk of Cayce's car was, if not her little girl that she murdered.
Just an accident snoballed out of control, maybe.
That dead body in her trunk - maybe it was also killed by snowballs.
The snowball defense. Will it catch on?
Cuffs| 7.7.11 @ 9:45AM
Obama, president of the United States.
Oprah Winfrey, the most powerful woman in
the world.
There you have it, folks.
Both followed and revered on emotion rather
than intellect. Ye Gods how can we wonder
when things go bad?
MATT M.| 7.7.11 @ 9:53AM
I suppose if the jury had not been sequestered and had the wisdom of all the Latrine Lawyers to process it would have arrived at the "correct" verdict.
Rick V.| 7.7.11 @ 9:55AM
Casey lied, Caylee died. Had Caylee been aborted prior to her birth instead of after, her mother would have been celebrated as a hero - and may still. What's the big deal? Girls just wanna have fun, right?
Brian| 7.7.11 @ 9:55AM
I'm reminded of what an OJ Juror said. "They never proved Mark Furman didn't commit the murders"
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 7.7.11 @ 10:33AM
Good one! He was the white male!
Peter McGrath| 7.7.11 @ 10:05AM
The laziness and moral cowardice displayed by the jury (selected in Pinellas County, 100 miles from Orlando) was an affront to the rule of law. Each and every one of them must now live with their collectively selfish, poorly thought-out, decision. They let a murderer go free, just because it was "too hard" to sort out the evidence before them. As Casey Anthony collects the prize money "earned" from murdering her own daughter, one hopes that each and every one of these pathetic jurors realizes the shame they have brought upon themselves and our system of justice.
Maddox| 7.7.11 @ 10:58AM
A little common sense would have allowed them to see that a mother who does not scream every day for a month that her child is missing is guilty. Just another indicator of what our society has become. Common sense has been replaced with political correctness and entitlement. We are stuck with poor or little justice and a president who hates the country. It is only going to get uglier.
Paul| 7.7.11 @ 12:27PM
Maddox,
Your first statement reminded me of the account of Solomon in I Kings 3. Verse 28 says that after hearing of this judgment, "all Israel . . . saw that the wisdom of God was in him" (KJV); unfortunately we don't have much of that wisdom around these days.
Bill| 7.7.11 @ 10:08AM
As I understood the case, which I didn't follow to any great degree, there was no evidence that the child was killed. We know she died, but we never found out how.
Under such circumstances, it's difficult to see how the jury could have done anything other than what they did.
Do I think Ms. Anthony killed that child? Yes. Would I bet my last dollar that she did it premeditatedly? Yes. Fortunately for Ms. Anthony, that's not enough for proof of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. Whatever the jury's faults, they were sharp enough to see that.
Gary| 7.7.11 @ 10:25AM
There was a reasonable conclusion that she was killed as why would duct tape be used in an accidental death? Her body was in the killer's trunk. This woman should be sterilized lest she bear another child. To conclude there was NO evidence that this was a homicide is not rational.
Grzmlyk| 7.7.11 @ 10:39AM
Although it would help, it's not necessary to know how the murder was committed. Acknowledging that I wasn't there, and I'm not intimately familier with the tril, I would think the duct tape on the skull would be proof enough for me, given the other evidence.
Bill| 7.7.11 @ 4:45PM
In order to prove someone guilty of premeditated murder, or manslaughter, beyond a reasonable doubt, a prosecutor would need some evidence that connects the death with the accused. The need for that kind of minimum connection between the dead and the accused strikes me as eminently rational.
rick| 7.11.11 @ 2:16PM
Wrong.
There was an abundance of evidence that the child was killed.
It's not on video, or in a history book, or on Facebook, if that's what you mean by "evidence".
Gary| 7.7.11 @ 10:22AM
If the evidence showed the child had a bullet in her head and was the cause of death, these air heads would buy a defense story that a gun was dropped, went off, and killed the child. Maybe it's because I have a beautiful two year old granddaughter that this case really upsets me. We must remember this is Florida, a state where they can't even count votes in a presidential election. Why should we expect much from these jurors?
Bill| 7.7.11 @ 4:46PM
To prove Casey Anthony guilty of murder, the prosecution would need (in your scenario) evidence to connect the gun with the hold in the child's head and with Ms. Anthony using the gun on the child. They didn't have that kind of evidence.
Steve A| 7.7.11 @ 10:23AM
One of 2 things happened:
A) She killed the child, put her in a bag, chucked her in the swamp, said nothing for a month, lied to police, went out & partied it up.
B) The child died accidentally, all of the above.
Either way, this babe is an absolute scumbag. She is destined to suffer with the knowledge of her actions for the rest of her days.
This episode will fade away & years from now, we will hear of her demise. She will not prosper in any meaningful spiritual way in spite of any book deal, porn career or other such nonsense.
Gary| 7.7.11 @ 10:26AM
Suffer? You assume she has a conscience?
Steve A| 7.7.11 @ 10:38AM
Everyone has one. Some just bury it better than others.
Grzmlyk| 7.7.11 @ 10:40AM
Socipaths do not have consciences.
Steve A| 7.7.11 @ 1:34PM
I know this is the theory but I ain't buyin it. Maybe Arnold in the Terminator is lacking, but that's about it.
If you have a soul, its there.
Bill| 7.7.11 @ 4:48PM
There's no evidence that she killed the child. There's no evidence that she put the child in the bag. Is there evidence that she put the bag in the swamp? If so, that might make her an accessory after the fact.
rick| 7.11.11 @ 2:28PM
Yeah. She just enjoys carrying dead bodies in her car trunk while the spare tire cover is soaked with choroform.
And Caylee put the unusual duct tape located in the Anthony's garage on her own face.
And the coroner testifying it was "homicide" did not understand the meaning of the word "homicide". She thought is meant the same as suicide - by self-affixed duct tape.
Michael L. Hauschild| 7.7.11 @ 10:31AM
As much as it will stick in our craw; better a hundred guilty released than one innocent incarcerated.
Steve A| 7.7.11 @ 10:38AM
I hope they all live in your neighborhood.
Michael L. Hauschild| 7.7.11 @ 12:41PM
Sorry,
I am going to go with Benjamin Franklin on this one.
I paraphrased his quote by the way.
Mark Shepler | 7.7.11 @ 1:22PM
Right Michael,
Is that in the same part of his Autobiography where he tells of the hanging of two "housebreakers" (i.e.- burglars) who harmed no people? And that after a trial within a few days?
Somehow, I don't think the never "trying the system" to the point of madness in letting all kinds of genuine psychopaths is what Franklin had in mind. Or would countenance.
Steve A| 7.7.11 @ 1:24PM
C. A. may be called many things, but "innocent" does not quite fit by any stretch now does it? Just think about it. Think about the KNOWN actions of this woman & tell me she is innocent. Maybe they can't pin 1st degree on her, but she does not walk if I am on the jury.
Steve A| 7.7.11 @ 1:28PM
Sorry Michael. I like Ben. He is on my favorite currency, but first of all, the ratio of 100-1 is imagined or a hypothetical. His point is that we do not railroad people without a fair trial. Sure, I'm all about that.
If this lady were to have pulled this stunt in 1779 & Ben were the judge, with the same evidence presented, with the moral standards in that era, she would have been hung & buried in an unmarked grave.
Bill| 7.7.11 @ 4:51PM
People who murder rarely do it twice. The murders that occur involve people killing other people who in some way are close to them. Random murders are rare; so are multiple or serial murders.
So if any murderers want to live in my neighborhood, I won't particularly like it, but I'd rather have them as my neighbors than a neighborhood of burglars and muggers.
Grzmlyk| 7.7.11 @ 10:46AM
Really? Better a hundred guilty released than one innocent incracerated?
Then why have prisons at all? There's almost always a chance that, when a defendant pleads "not guilty," the jury's going to get it wrong. Why don't we just let everybody go lest we make the mistake of wrongly convicting one?
In the real world, very little is certain. We cannot wait for 100 percent certitude about virtually any of the decisions we make in life.
"Better 100 guilty go free than one innocent incarcerate" might sound like a swell shibboleth - and in Utopia, I'm sure it's doable, but in the real world we have to deal with uncertainty, and sometimes that means innocent people go to jail.
John Navratil| 7.7.11 @ 12:41PM
Grzmlyk,
You don't have to make a black and white fallacy of this. The reason the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt is to keep the state honest and to err on the side of liberty. The measure of the doublt is "reasonable". It's the same in all manner of tests we perform when we want to push error to the benign side of the test.
The system cannot be perfect as it is the result of human actions. We know we have false convictions and yet we do not trash the system because of it. We don't demand certainty, but we do demand the burden be put on the state to prove and not the defendant to disprove.
It a terrible system, except for all the rest. My personal opinion is the process failed here. Would it have been a superior failure to execute an innocent, instead?
Patrick| 7.7.11 @ 1:04PM
Are you prepared to be one of the innocent people going to jail? Or see your wife or child or someone else you care for go to jail for a crime they didn't commit? Let's personalize this. It's easy to talk about some "other" innocent person going to jail, not so easy when it's you or your wife, child, best friend or grandchild. Then maybe you're going to say, yeah let those hundred guilty people go free, yes?
While not necessarily in this case, we do see prosecutorial misconduct all the time. Texas recently almost assuredly executed an innocent man. Again, if that is your son, your best friend, are you prepared to accept that, or do you, like me come to the point where it is time to abolish the death penalty once and for all to give innocent ample time to prove their innocence?
In the case of Casey, the prosecution tried to use something that had not been fully tested to demostrate that the body had been in the trunk of car. They violated what we call the "Daubert" principle. Sorry but no. The Bill of Rights makes it quite clear that the government can't abuse innocent people and that they have the burden of proof to determine that someone is truly guilty. The Founders had seen time and time again how innocent people had been abused by tyrannical governments and they weren't having any of it here. So yeah we're probably going to err on the side of letting some guilty people go free in order to ensure that innocent people are not deprived of their unalienable rights.
Grzmlyk| 7.7.11 @ 1:19PM
Per my response elsewhere, I'd be as happy to be wrongly convicted of a crime as you would be to have a convicted rapist/murderer move in next door.
I'm not disagreeing with the general principle of justice. I'm saying the system is flawed and it's fatuous to say it's better to let 100 guilty people go free than 1 innocent person be convicted.
We do not live in such a system.
skip| 7.8.11 @ 10:52AM
Were you prepared to be one of the fifty three million innocent people 'legally' aborted? Are we probably erring on the side of some fifty three million people in order to ensure that these some fifty three million innocent people are not deprived of their unalienable rights?
Bill| 7.7.11 @ 5:20PM
Because we adhere to a system of law that follows the principles of the Scottish Enlightenment, in which it was held that crimes are attacks on the social order, therefore, people who act in their own best interests don't ordinarily commit crimes. If that is true, then it makes perfect sense to require that proof of guilt of a crime be made beyond a reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, the value judgment is that it's better to let a hundred guilty persons go free than to convict one innocent person. It's very easy for us to belittle this principle, but when we are the ones who are accused of a crime, it becomes highly important and treasured.
rick| 7.11.11 @ 2:51PM
"Reasonable doubt" has no definition, and is an entirely meaningless term.
Kinda like "strict scrutiny". It's like regular scrutiny only stricter.
Any doubt that can be manufactured or sythesized from imagination satisfies "reasonable" if the person synthesizing it wants it to.
Jose Baez hung his hat on this fact. He would be lucky enough to get a stupid jury, or he would lose.
Hence, he proposed two mutually exclusive stories as factual. George placed duct tape and hid the body. Kronk stole the skull and placed duct tape, and returned it.
Then he repeated buzz phrases. "Fantasy forensics" "Snowballed our of control." "No cause of death". "Convict her because she's a slut."
It was actually brilliant - assuming he knew the jury was stupid. If he did not know this, he fell ass backward into winning the trial of the century by being stupid himself.
KyMouse| 7.7.11 @ 1:19PM
I hope that if the next Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy and Jeffrey Dahmer are in that 100, you'll invite them to live in YOUR neighborhood.
skip| 7.8.11 @ 7:44AM
A case can be made one innocent per hundred guilty put to death would produce a more just and safe society than we live in now. 53 million sound familiar?
Better still is capital punishment for every judge who releases murderers or rapists who then murder or rape.
Louis Jenkins| 7.7.11 @ 10:33AM
The American Justice system stands tall and proud. To have a conviction you must have 100% of the jurors say guilty. Doesn't mean the perp isn't, just that it requires 100%. Did Ms Anthony kill Kaylee? I believe so. Why was the kid's mouth taped? If she was dead then it would be needed. Let's be honest, a jury doesn't have all the facts. Never does and never will. Oft times they go with their instincts.
George S| 7.7.11 @ 11:44AM
Years ago, a jury convicted a man of kidnap-murder based one piece of circumstantial evidence: some of the ransom money was found hidden between the rafters in his garage. The rest of the evidence was inconsistent and the witness testimony was not only inconsistent but smelled strongly of police coaching. No single piece of evidence put the defendant in the victim's house and the critical piece of alibi evidence appeared to have been altered. The prosecution, meantime, was peppering its questions with slurs against the defendant's nationality -- for at that time, that nationality was looked upon not only with suspicion but that of a foreign enemy. The jury convicted and the defendant was later executed. I am sure that that defendant would have appreciated an impartial jury that only looked at the evidence and had the courage to ignore what fellow Americans would have thought about giving a German national a fair shake.
That is the essence of our system -- to ignore the prejudices, borne by ignorance or racialism, or other quirks of human nature and deliberate a verdict based on evidence and not what is the popular belief. It is not about delivering a message nor is it a vehicle for retribution (someone has to pay). While justice may be satisfied with a guilty verdict apart from the evidence, the damage to our system would be profound: people will be judged on appearances than evidence. This is why communist show trials were conducted, to give the crowd their Emmanuel Goldstein. Freedom demands that a trial is fair and impartial, hence the trial-by-(nonprofessional) jury.
None of use heard all the evidence and none of us were at the scene of the crime. Anything else is just beauty shop gossip.
John Navratil| 7.7.11 @ 12:31PM
George S,
It is true that we have to respect the verdict. It is the underpinning of our justice system and if the state cannot prove the crime it loses. Better ten guilty walk than one innocent convicted.
That does not mean we have to check our reason at the door. I wasn't there. I wasn't a juror. But this result strains credulity.
Grzmlyk| 7.7.11 @ 12:39PM
Again, I don't think the aphorism "better ten guilty walk than one innocent convicted" works in the causal universe.
Where do you draw the line? Better 1,000 guilty walk than one innocent convicted? Better 10,000 walk than one innocent convicted? How about a million? What would society look like under such a scenario?
It's just not true in the real world; such bromides make for great moral clarity in our minds and demonstrate to our own satisfaction that we are very civilized and that we engage in supposedly uncompromising fairness, but there's one problem: it's just not true.
For my money, I'd rather have one innocent in jail than let them all out on the chance that some of them might have been convicted unjustly.
John Navratil| 7.7.11 @ 12:43PM
Grzmlyk,
That's one way to do it. I don't suspect you would be so sanguine if you were the innocent. Please see my response to you, above.
Grzmlyk| 7.7.11 @ 1:01PM
I don't disagree with you for the most part; but the fact is, we DO have a system where innocent people are sometimes convicted and sometimes executed.
We live with it because it's the best we can do. Of course I wouldn't be so sanguine if it were me who was wrongly convicted; but then we cannot make decisions on how to deal with humanity at large based on what each individual would be comfortable with.
Again, what number of guilty would we be comfortable with setting free so as to avoid convicting one innocent person? It's an interesting question, is it not?
John Navratil| 7.7.11 @ 1:06PM
Grzmlyk,
You make a slippery slope argument. The number I would be pleased with is zero. The number I am comfortable with, while undetermined, is the number it takes for the state to establish their burden. For the number to be, as you have suggest, everyone charged (as the system cannot be shown to be perfect), requires the state to be completely derelict is its duty to prove a case. Not reasonable.
Grzmlyk| 7.7.11 @ 1:06PM
Also, how sanguine would you be if the governor of your state decided to live by the "better to let 10 guilty go free than let one innocent be wrongly convicted" and decided to free 10 convicted rapists and murderers - and one of them happened to move next door to your family?
John Navratil| 7.7.11 @ 1:07PM
Grzmlyk,
No problem. My family is already in jail in your system.
Grzmlyk| 7.7.11 @ 1:17PM
Come on - I expected more from you than a troll-like response.
The two points I'm making are 1) that phrase itself is intellectually untenable; and 2)that certitude is impossible; the deal we make when we live in civilized society is that we know innocent people are going to wind up convicted and we accept that - while trying to minimize the number.
You disappoint me.
John Navratil| 7.7.11 @ 1:46PM
Grzmlyk,
Have you read my posts? I accept the price of the system is some failure. I expect the errors to be on the side of liberty, not death. The phrase you disparage states intellectually that the error should be on the side of liberty. Of course we wish to minimize the number. We do that by making sure prosecutors make their cases.
I'm sorry I disappoint you. But I reject the notion that having an equal number of errors on each side is a moral equivalence or that it is superior to the one we have.
You have not answered my question, posed above, if it were morally equivalent to execute an innocent Casey Anthony as it is to let a guilty one go free. Please do before calling me a troll when I flippantly dismiss your attempt to discredit my argument using a black-white fallacy with another one. However, to answer your question: I would be much more pleased to have a guilty rapist move in next door than to be incarcerated for a crime I didn't commit.
Grzmlyk| 7.7.11 @ 3:38PM
I don't know if it would be morally equivalent - what if you let a guilty murderer go free and he goes on to kill a thousand innocent people? How can you say killing one innocent person is morally superior to that? Maybe you can, but I'm not so sure.
My whole point is that this issue does not lend itself to a binary world where one thing is good and the other is bad. I'm not arguing about the legal system at all or the rights that defendants must have. From the 25% of this case I've read about (having watched maybe a total of 6 mintues of taped footage from the actual trial), I think the evidence would have been sufficient for me to convict.
Am I certain? No. Was I in the courtroom? No. Do I know the thousand prejudices or the intimidation or obsequiousness of some of the jurors that might have informed the verdict? I do not, and neither do you.
There is no such thing as objectivity when human perception is involved.
And with respect to that statement, it is my only contention that we don't live in a digital universe, we live in an analog universe, and therefore the statement is ridiculous on its face, even though I understand the sentiment behind it. But as a policy it is about as useful as saying you can weigh happiness.
And if that guilty rapist you'd accept living next door went on to rape and kill your daughter, would you still feel the same way?
It's absurd, and that's all i'm trying to say - I don't care who said it first - is that the whole "better to let 10 guilty men go free" aphorism is nothing but a platitude with very little application in the real world. We don't have a justice system that does that. And, if you think about it, the whole PREMISE of that statement itself is a slippery slope argument.
Al Adab| 7.7.11 @ 4:04PM
The argument is going in circles. No human agency is 100% error free. The question is which side do we err on?
Grzmlyk| 7.7.11 @ 4:08PM
You are right, Al Adab.
Human action is not easily codified, parsed, explicated or quantified.
That is our lot.
If it helps, I believe we should all strive for world peace and I don't ever want to see a child go hungry. I also enjoy long walks on the beach and hanging out with good friends. :-)
Grzmlyk| 7.7.11 @ 4:05PM
Oops - obviously I was in a hurry when I wrote this - I meant in the first graph, how can you say NOT killing one person is morally superior.
In any case, it sounds like we're arguing over something that is inconsquential. I have to go and I'm done with this.
My recollection is that, on balance, we agree 0n most issues, so I'd prefer to break the suction here.
John Navratil| 7.7.11 @ 4:24PM
Grzmlyk,
There is absolutely nothing slippery about saying that is is better that (fill in the blank) go free than one be incarcerated. You have made it so. You ask, if it's 10, 100, 1000... pick a number. There is no number to pick. No one lets the guilty go free. They go free because the state has failed to meet its burden of proof. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing slippery. The statement says, in other words, that it is better for the guilty to go unpunished than to have the innocent punished. You call this "silly on its face" and "attempting to weigh happiness".
You and I do agree, that from what we saw we would have convicted Caley Anthony. Then you get all squishy about being certain or being in the court room. Good God man, do you know your own mind, or not? It's OK to have an opinion. It's not OK for the state the incarcerate based on it -- separate issues.
Yet you persist with "what if games". You ask, "What if the freed guilty murderer goes on to murder again?" which begs the central question. How do you know if the murderer is guilty without a conviction? How exactly does executing an innocent prevent that? You ask if I would feel the same if the may daughter were raped by someone incorrectly freed. Same question, you don't know, a priori. Of course, If I find the man was recently acquitted of the same crime I would think the system had failed. Prospect and retrospect give profoundly different views. You seem to suggest that it is acceptable to incarcerate innocents in order to prevent the guilty from being freed. These are separate cases and not binary choices. What you seem to conclude is that the system needs to error on the side of incarceration, or at least more so.
And with that we disagree.
Bill| 7.7.11 @ 5:22PM
That's because "better to let a hundred guilty walk than convict one innocent person" is not based on causality. It is based on certain assumptions about normal human behavior and the value of civilization.
Grzmlyk| 7.7.11 @ 12:33PM
I'm no expert on the Lindbergh case, and I know that Bruno Hauptmann has been exonerated by many theories and books since. But, to my knowledge, we still don't know with 100% certitude whether he was innocent.
There is no such thing in the real world as pristine fainess or impartiality.
You never know for sure when you vote to convict - or to acquit - if you've made the right call. And none of us can really say to what extent our subjectivity affects what we see.
There is an objective reality, but it is largely unknowable for human beings to discern it with certainty.
Mike Giles| 7.10.11 @ 11:06AM
What I find frightening is how many people - most of whom I doubt sat in the courtroom and heard the actual testimony - are convinced of the woman's guilt based upon what they heard or saw on TV. That and the desire for vengeance, combined with the "fact" that she wasn't a "good" mother. It simply drives me crazy that people will accept anything that appears on a TV screen as reality. I don't know whether the woman committed the crime. I don't have nearly enough information. But I not going to demand the woman's head based on the "two minute Hate" I just saw on TV. People here have mentioned the OJ trial. The thing that struck me about the entire affair, was the difference between the way evidence was presented in court and the way it was then reported in that evenings news. Breathless talking heads, attempting to sensationalize every fact, should never be accepted as accurate.
Ed| 7.7.11 @ 11:50AM
The jury system has its problems, but it is your best defense against politicized judges. Imagine, dear reader, that you have been charged with a firearms violation of some kind. Would you rather have a jury decide the case, or an Obama-appointed judge?
marco| 7.7.11 @ 11:52AM
Having a semblance of an actual life to live, I did not waste my time immersing myself in the Anthony trial, but I did watch the summation by the supposedly brilliant lead prosecutor last weekend, and it dawned on me that the state had NOTHING. Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, hardly.
cicero| 7.7.11 @ 11:52AM
While I did not watch the trial, I have tried enough criminal cases (several homicides) to know that the judge would have given instructions about what circumstantial evidence is; What is meant by "reasonable doubt"; and lesser included offenses (second degree, mannslaughter, etc.)
It seems to me that this case went on way too long. It was worth about 3 days, at best. The defense forensic witness, Werner Spitz, will say anything he is paid to say. I have had him on both sides of similar cases before.
Notwithstanding the above, juries return funny findings, sometimes.
Al Adab| 7.7.11 @ 1:22PM
Cicero:
Simply another example of over zealous prosecution without enough facts to back up the charges. We see it in Court all the time. Often the cases are pled to the actual crime, but in capital cases the prosecution simply can't back off so the jusry decides. We forget what it means in practice to "prove your case".
Brubaker| 7.7.11 @ 5:18PM
Excellent observations. Add this to the mix: One of the jurors, Jennifer Ford, has already given an interview to ABC news. In the interview she opined that they (the jury) did not have enough evidence to sustain a conviction on the first degree murder charge.
Then-- here comes the money shot--she went on to say that if prosecution had included other lesser charges they would have voted for conviction. "Absolutely."
Of course Casey Anthony was charged with three felony counts, including first degree murder, aggravated manslaughter and manslaughter of a child, plus their lesser included charges. All of that was explained in meticulous detail by Judge Perry, and those instructions were also provided to each juror in writing.
So, as a matter of public record, at least one juror still had no idea what charges she was "deliberating" and simply voted not guilty straight down the line. Given the speed with which the jury returned its verdict, there is clear reason to suspect other jurors were equally clueless.
The damage is done in this case and cannot be undone. The greater implications for the continued integrity of our jury system are frightening.
Tina B| 7.8.11 @ 8:40AM
As I write, two jurors have already come out of the woodwork and, as you say Brubaker, they sound as ignorant of the law as I thought they were.
The two lesser charges were made for this situation. A little girl was dead, not by her own hand. She was last with her mother Casey, in or out of her sight. Casey's lies to her parents and friends occured every day for 31 days. When Mom finds this out and calls the cops, a new set of lies begins, again daily. Boy, walking the detectives all the way to her "office" and then turning around and saying,"OK. I was lying, I really don't have a job." takes the cake.
Six months after her disappearance, baby Caylee is now found dead, in plastic and duct tape. Also she is found in the same woods that Casey and a friend have previously buried tiny pets they once owned. A kind of secret place in the woods near their home growing up.
Mom parties like it's 1999 until caught. During which time Casey never mentions her missing baby to lovers and friends, just tells more lies.
No physical connection needed. I see the dots, I connect them ( just sayin') and she is guilty of the lesser two counts, AT THE VERY LEAST. But if the jurors, and foreman/forewoman ever more so, don't understand that the lesser charges don't need every detail about the death and "burial," what the hey?
Who picked these lame people to trust with our safety, and that of the next baby Casey plans to get, now that she is released? She pondered adoption in letters from jail. A bio-mom's worst nightmare. And I know, because I am a bio-mom. Until I found my Wally safe in Minnesota with his loving family, the unknown torment or death of my adopted baby was my greatest fear.
Tina B| 7.7.11 @ 11:53AM
GRZMYLK: excellent post and I completely resonate and I'm from Orlando and have watched much of the trial since school ended last month.
The crux of the action was at the start, with Jose Baez' sexual abuse accusations, which one talking head says really brought on the media-fest that became the trial of the century, and I concur.
My own 4 degrees of separation:
(1.) My close friend and colleague, Nery, is sister to one of the Anthony's neighbors and we got info that for many years the family completed doted on their two perfect children. This is borne out by the fact that they covered up her pregnancy to a great extent even from her brother, Lee, right up to the very end.
The family certainly is perfectly manicured as is their home and especially a back yard dedicated to family fun and Caylee's safety and happiness. It is a beautiful setting, but the children might not have been Hansel and Gretel. And Cindy and George might have been enablers and in denial as their daughter's lies grew in both frequency and intensity.
The neighbor said, "Those kids could do no wrong in their parents' eyes," or words to that effect, as if they blinded themselves to the reality that Casey was a wild child, enabling her to grow worse.
(2.) A former student of mine who had kept in touch became an Orlando CSI investigator. She testified several times and did us all proud.
The sad facts were that the Florida heat and summer rains had rendered the scene where little Caylee was found a temporary swamp. Anyone from Florida knows that a body in a swamp will result in a lack of DNA due to hasty decomposition in both sweltering heat and daily thunderstorms dropping inches of rain on a regular basis.
Weather, wildlife and forest growth were the culprits in helping cover up the remains for the right length of time to leave the scene devoid of any concrete evidence. My dear ex-student and CSI could not do her best work under the typical Florida swamp/forest crime scenes.
(3.) Another good friend and my hairdresser, Gaye, decided to join a friend and go to the courthouse at 4:30 am in the early days of the trial. She not only got in but sat next to the defendant's mom and dad for that trial day. She said George carried his Bible, and Cindy was very nice.
I felt my heart go out to Cindy again and again as she sobbed on the stand, while listening to, and probably reliving her phone call declaring her granddaughter missing to the OPD.
(4.) My teammate and a delightful Social Studies teacher he is, Adrian, lives with his wife in the same complex as Roy Cronk, the meter reader who found the little body. I will only say that my friend believes Cronk is not "slick" enough to plan, or plot, or even deceive the public and the PD about the finding of the remains, or moving them. He is just not a "smooth operator" who could pull of a crime within a crime. He may have longed to get rich, and said so, but what does that have to do with what happened to Caylee Anthony?
Call me silly but I feel I have an unusual view of the U.S. court system and murder trials, having taken a steady diet of real crime TV programs for the past 15 years or so. In addition, that is, to reading (devouring might be a better word) all the John Grisham, Harlan Coben, P.D. James, John Lescroart, Michael Connelly and any other murder/murder trials authors I can get my hands on.
I am not a wannabe murderer, but I am a wannabe CSI. I love teaching algebra because I love solving a good mystery and I love teaching middle schoolers because they are a mystery also.
I have seen and read enough on the web, backgrounds on people connected to Casey in the months just before the "disappearance" of her daughter. I found the texts between Casey and her then-lover Tony Lazarro in the days before her mom went on the 1 week vacation that gave Casey a true taste of freedom from motherhood and la vida loca.
Casey was growing desparate to hold on to him until she could be free to see him again. Three weeks she couldn't get alone with him, since he wasn't about to have the baby girl at his apartment for "sleep-overs". He was ready to party-on! without her if she didn't get over to his house pretty soon.
In these 5 days of texts Casey began to sound frantic to hold on to Tony, all the while lying to him about "events-coordinating" from her computer at home. A consummate liar who is now getting desparate to keep her hottie and lose her responsibilities.
I saw what I saw, the jury saw what they were allowed to see. I saw far more than they did.
I heard what I heard about the behaviors and motivations of those involved, or close to the defendant, Casey the liar. The jury heard a limited amount.
We obviously saw reasonable doubt differently, because I have no doubt whatsoever that Casey Anthony was criminally negligent in the care of her daughter and she is the reason we may never know the how, where and when of the death. But she is guilty of criminal manslaughter (negligence of a child in her care) at a minimum, of that a reasonable person would have no doubt.
But then I am a person who can actually reason from data given, and not one who would parrot the jury instructions and only say the prosecution did not prove their case: I know she's guilty but they didn't prove their case, so I'll agree to vote innocent, go along with the crowd, and go home after only 11 hours deliberating, to my family and my regular life.
The film Twelve Angry Men shows what might have happened if a Henry Fonda character had emerged on that jury. I like to think I would have done that.
Wayne | 7.7.11 @ 12:45PM
I can relate. I was on a jury and in that case I was the lone not-guilty against 11 guilties. It was only a simple assault case, but I was convinced their was no crime, and the so-called victim refused to even testify. But we went on for 2 days, and I was prepared to keep going as my convenience and peer pressure was not going to be a reason to vote someone guilty. In the end I swayed the others and it was 12 not-guilty votes.
Then I went to the state DA afterwards and scolded him for even bringing up the case.
Mark Shepler | 7.7.11 @ 1:09PM
Hey Tina,
Thanks for your two cents. Very insightful. Two points you bring up I've pondered myself.
1. About Roy Kronk, I remember just after he found the remains the Ft. Lauderdale Sun Sentinel and the Orlando Sentinel as well (I think) ran a story that mentioned he had a background in the Orlando area Private Investigator community. Seems he worked as a stringer for various local slueths or something. Well, that was right about the time Casey was bailed out by that sorta celebrity PI and was being shuffled around by him and his posse. Remember that? Well, I'm not into conspiracies or diabolical plot mongering but I've always thought that coincidence very, very odd. I mean how large a "community" is the Orlando PI set?
So what are the odds of a total coincidence that Casey finds refuge in the arms of a local PI and, lo and behold, a bit later a guy with connections to the PI crowd finds the remains? Is it simply that his past experience and instincts informed him where to look, his protestations of accidental discovery notwithstanding? Or is something more afoot? Was he guided there? I've tried to hash out how and why the PIs would play ball, maybe through the intermediatry of Casey's counsel, promise of money later, etc. and some theories seeem possible but they all are canceled out by the requirement that everybody keeps their mouth shut. Of course, now that she's been acquitted we might hear more on that, time will tell.
2.I'm with you on the jury issue. Upon hearing the verdict it was obvious a conviction wasn't in the cards even if Hank Fonda had been there but couldn't at least ONE or the requisite number of clear-eyed jurors hold out for a hung jury? Couldn't one follow the thread that just because he or she couldn't convict on murder 1 beyond a reasonable doubt that there was reason enough at least not to let her walk? A hung jury would at least ensure she could be tried again, perhaps at lesser, more provable charges. I dunno, seems such a travesty but I am certain she will get her just desserts. There are all kinds of prisons and hells and she's won a ticket to a particularly bitter one. I am confident of it. See my take below.
Wayne | 7.7.11 @ 12:37PM
What this case shows that in a trial, Osama Bin Laden or KSM would easily be found guilty. In fact the case itself would probably have to be thrown out because President Obama prejudiced the jury pool by calling them guilty.
Mark Shepler | 7.7.11 @ 12:39PM
Well, as I told my six confused and distraught kids about the verdict, fear not, for there is a rough justice in this life. Having lived awhile and paid attention I can attest it is so. It may take a decade or three but the world will read of Casey Anthony in the papers again someday. And it won't be pretty. Think Madelyn Murray O'Hair or O.J. Simpson. Though not a murderer herself, O'Hair was rewarded in full for her higher depredations at the hands of a killer, fellow atheist she hired on purpose in her infinite wisdom and a kinky fetish for the frisson of danger attendant to bossing violent men. And a wisdom gathered through decades of a single minded conviction she knew better than all of mankind who had come before on matters of God and man and all that follows to the point of forcing her views on the world.
Simpson got away with murder and rather than causing gratitude and caution in him it emboldened him to the point he thought he could waltz into a hotel to rob men at gunpoint. And such heedlessness will go double for Anthony, especially after she's become wealthy and all the world is her oyster as a direct REWARD for her evil. O.J. had already lived half his much more mature life in the spotlight and at least knew the pitfalls and traps of fame and celebrity even if he eventually ignored the lessons. But Anthony? Young, selfish, so, so foolish Anthony? She's about to get everything every young American thinks they want precisely because she went all the way to the edge of the abyss of evil and survived. Satan knows a likely lass when he sees one and so chose her out when he spotted her at the rim of the pit that day.
He has already prepared a special place for her but he is patient and can wait. What is 20, 30 or even 60 years to him? Why not provide all that a proven, can-do human can need or want to facilitate his ends? It's all temporary and he'll get it all back anyway as part of the fun. For she will provide decades of entertainment as everything and everybody that all his lavished money and fame brings to this wretch of a self-centered, selfish young girl. He'll laugh at her look of astonishment, dread, horror and occasional recognition as it is all torn from her grasp one bit at a time.
Her desperation and torment, and that of those she helps ensnares along her way, will delight Satan and his minions as well as properly instruct those future young people who do not remember her deed in the ways of the pit. Many will sympathize with her distress and so fall prey to and in with his schemes, too. It's a quintessential win-win. Only it's not though the deluded lass thinks otherwise. She gets "it all" in a windfall for doing his work well and he gets it ALL back, including her priceless soul, little by slowly. As I've also told my children forever, the fatal conceit of those who enter into deals with the devil is in thinking he will not double-cross them. But, there's the rub, he ALWAYS does. It's the punchline, the gag, the spice and flavor, the whole point of his playing along, really.
And when she's all used up and even she recognizes in dread all the waste, rot, decay and evil, then he will finally claim her.
Doctor Right| 7.7.11 @ 12:53PM
Is it any surprise that someone with the moniker "Cyrus Vance" is incompetent?
Like father, like son...
Ray D. Eads| 7.7.11 @ 12:53PM
Few of these comments have addressed the facts that this Jury was kept away from family, friends (?), etc. for six weeks and was finally free to get away from the scene of the crime. They simply did not want to be kept in bondage any longer so this verdict was the quickest way out!! I am glad I do not live in Pinellas county, FL.
Anthony| 7.7.11 @ 12:57PM
I did not follow the Casey Anthony case, but at least the prosecution put on its case, presumably, the best case the evidence allowed for.
The prosecutors in NY have caved to political pressure, pure and simple. Now all of a sudden, this woman is less than perfect, oh really? Since when are most "victims" in sexual assault cases all saints?
In the legal world I operate in, they are embraced, flaws and all, and it's full speed ahead to trial.
The juxtaposition between this woman and the proven liar in the Duke Lacrosse case, is all you need to know about the politics of how these two cases were handled. White college boys guilty, white, rich, lefty socialist, innocent.
Apparently, the DNA evidence, i.e. Strauss-Kahn's seamen and the rest of all the forensic evidence has fallen down the rabbit hole. And what about his credibililty, this guy is Bill Clinton, the French version.
I'm not suprised, I expected this to happen, it was all so predictable. Even this Clintonesque dirt ball knew, that perpetual smile on his face told us, it's all a fait acompli...... suckers.
Appleby| 7.7.11 @ 1:22PM
Anybody who didn't see the French guy walking free coming 100 miles away is not living in the real world. Back in the 1990s a wealthy and well-known but very stupid hockey player threw a drink in a girl's face and then said "I make $3 million a year -- what are YOU going to do about it?" He found out tout suite, and ended up among other things having to live in a supervised home until he was 21, $3 million a year or not. But on the more populated side of the fence, some well-known sports figures get away with all kinds of criminal behaviour, because He Who Has The Gold, Makes The Rules.
Mike Giles| 7.10.11 @ 11:21AM
One of the things, I found interesting about the new complaints about the alleged victims credibility is that she didn't "immediately" come forward. I wondered if it ever occurred to all the champions of DSK in the media, that the maid comes from a place where the rich and powerful do as they please. It might have taken her a while to realize - or someone might even have had to tell her - that in this country they can't (or at least they're not to supposed to) behave in that manner. I also find it odd that the usually open borders crowd, find it "terrible" that she would lie on her asylum request.
Tina B| 7.7.11 @ 1:40PM
Mr. Shepler, you sound like a man who knows the Adversary, who roams the earth like a lion, devouring whoever he may.
God bless you, I think you are right. I prayed to God that I might have mercy on her and that she might accept this Grace of God that may have enabled her freedom, or not.
But I also prayed that this crazy verdict would not bring out the worst in me and leave me with a critical spirit temporarily. You are clearly right in supposing Casey Anthony will go they way of all flesh. For those who reject Christ and His Grace, "every last penny will be paid." She has this choice, even now, especially now.
Mark Shepler | 7.7.11 @ 2:03PM
Hello Tina,
Well, I know his ways a little bit too first hand as any child of the sixties and seventies might but it's pretty plain to see for those with eyes to see and ears to hear. Anybody who thinks Anthony is readying to embark on a pleasure cruise for the next however many years irrespective of any amount of money and fame she may garner is a fool.
And to those who say, "but she's innocent" I say, hold the phone. For her very next step will tell us what she is made of and give more clues about that purported innocence. If any of my sons or daughters went missing and turned up dead after 30 days of cold, calculated indifference on my part I certainly wouldn't hold my self blameless. Not during what I call "3am truth". You know, when it's 3am, you can't sleep and you're pondering your life? When there is no one to impress, rationalize or lie to, not even oneself? At 3am all men and women know the truth about their lives and themselves. And cashing in on the murder of my child would be the last thing I'd want.
Any takers on a bet on which way she'll go? Quietly, into dignified mourning, reflection and reform? Or celebrity, fame and fortune? And the real twist is she's going to go forth as a VICTIM. You can bank on it. A young, stalwart single mom deprived of her precious child by a cruel world, yea, even maybe her own father! And then persecuted by a merciless state and vengeful public! It's the surest way to lasting fame and fortune and exactly the kind of perverse, worldly rehabilitation Satan offers as the most profitable...in this life nowadays.
So, if she didn't kill Caylee herself the devil still knows hisr gal and how to win her heart. And ours.
Jennifer| 7.7.11 @ 1:57PM
Alan Dershowitz's op-ed in today's edition of the Wall Street Journal is the best commentary on the Casey Anthony trial I've read. It summarizes, sans "yellow journalism," how justice was served:
http://online.wsj.com/article/.....on_LEADTop
Oldefarte| 7.7.11 @ 2:05PM
Anyone viewed the two hour DATELINE/ID last night would understand the epitome of a circumstantial murder case. The park-n-ride security guard shot a young girl [both caucasion] within her car and was tried three seperate times. The first two resulted in a hung jury, and the third/final trial produced a murder conviction. A young African American juror of the convicting jury proclaimed that the jury felt the absolute need to GET IT RIGHT in their ultimate decision, again with no DNA, no fingerprints, no linked gun to the defendant, etc. This jury deliberated for approximately three weeks before bringing in a guilty verdict. The facts of the Anthony trial are that the dead child was last seen leaving in the presence of the custodial mother as both disappeared. The mother is still alive, whereas the child is dead. Either the mother purposely or accidently killed the child, or the child died accidently. Either way, IMO, she's guilty of either murder, manslaughter, or neglect; and the jury is guilty of malfeasance in not deciding a manslaughter verdict!!!!!!!!!!
Oldefarte| 7.7.11 @ 2:16PM
George N. offers an excellent linkage to the abortion question. Florida is a liberal [although southern] state populated by mostly transients from other states [and very few born/raised Floridians], and as such I believe voted for the current Democrat president in 2008 [whereas the rest of the conservative south voted for the Republican]. With 7 women and 5 men on the Anthony jury, it highly likely that the 7 women are mostly liberal proponents of abortion as a rightful choice belonging to female sex. Furthermore, it would not be much of a mindful stretch to think that possibly these women saw the female defendant' s right to rid herself of the burdensome child in order to ensure her choice/freedom to live out her sexual life. They could have thought it was the defendant's right versus the child's right, and the latter was thus subordinated to that of the former. In this case, they possibly reasoned that the defendant/mother had a right to murder her child. Just a theory, folks!!!!!!!
Oldefarte| 7.7.11 @ 2:26PM
Folks, I hate to keep PS'ing on this subject but feel that it's extemely important. The child obviously suffered unnecessarily, but in death rose like an exploding rocket to heaven. The ultimate NATURAL LAW and its supreme judge, the ALMIGHTY, will judge the mother at the time of her eventual death. IMO, its only a matter of time until the trap door opens up underneath her feet and she is sent to eternal damnation for her crime!!!!!!!!!!
Mark Shepler | 7.7.11 @ 3:14PM
Hey Oldle,
Always appreciate yer comments and I'm sympathetic to your thoughts on abortion but please, don't try to parse FL politics for us. You are obviously out of your fighting class and might hurt yourself. :)
Politically, FL is a wild and woolly state with multiple-personality disorder. Geographical south is Northern liberal in its politics and culture and vice-versa. You've got to go about 100 miles north of Lake Okeechobee before you're really back in the "South". As I've joked for years, in Florida the further North you go the more South you get.
Then, there are pockets of an older type of Democratic politics which you'll find up around Orlando, Tampa/St. Pete and Jacksonville. But it's still more conservative in nature than, say, Broward county (Ft. Lauderdale area) and southern Palm Beach county.
And to prove the point, yes FL did go for Obama-mania in '08 along with Rep majorities in our legislature. And in 2010 we elected Republican supermajorities in both Houses, a Republican gov., Sec of State, Treasurer, AG and just about anybody who matters in Tallahassee.
Every cycle, especially for Prez., is a toss up as to which personality is going to dominate but I think for the forseeable future the libs, who are a minority here, are a little catatonic from the noxious effects of Obama-ism.
Immortal 600| 7.7.11 @ 9:33PM
Mark, I am a northerner just moved to the Bradenton area. You can count me as a vote for whomever opposes Obama. I will do so proudly!
Steve A| 7.7.11 @ 2:16PM
Olde, You are 100% correct. It really is beyond a reasonable doubt that she dumped the child in the woods, accident or no. Then, if an accident, it becomes: Why do you not report it? Why do you lie to police if it were an accident?
Answer: You do not. No reasonable person dumps their child in the woods after they find them floating in the pool. Lies to police & her family, goes to Fusion & does keg stands for a month & then refuses to testify.
Al Adab| 7.7.11 @ 4:01PM
She wasn't charged with dumping a child in the woods. It was charged as 1st degree murder, death penalty. Perhaps the prosecuters overcharged and didn't have the evidence, ya think?
Tina B| 7.7.11 @ 4:42PM
Yes, I think.
Over charged, 1st degree was going to be a bitch to prove with the swampy evidence and master-liar defendant. Casey A tricked the police, the FBI and her parents for 31 days.
Too hasty, very possibly, Once Dr. G said no definite cause of death the prosecutors were stymied. Should they have waited to arrest her, until they had a more substantial case? In retrospect, yes. But was she a flight risk, able to disappear if she wanted? Was Jeff Ashton nearing the end of a successful career prosecuting murderers in Orlando? Did he want to win this possible murder of an innocent baby girl before he left? He believed, as many of us still do, that Casey was guilty of neglect and child endangerment, at the very least. Should he have tried her for manslaughter not murder? Maybe yes to all of the above.
However, were I on the jury I still believe I would have held out, even hung the damned jury if they wanted to vote to let her go. Let em try her again, until they get it right.
I respect those jury members who hung the 2 juries on the DATELINE/ID show I also watched last night. The 3rd jury saw the light and put a murderer away. I only wish Caylee Anthony's murderer (it is murder if someone dies in the commission of a felony and chloroforming someone or taping a baby's mouth would be a felony) was going to remain in prison and be retried. This is a travesty of justice. At least that's how I see it.
Al Adab| 7.7.11 @ 5:31PM
Tina your contributions today are well done and welcome. Nice to have you aboard. Keep it up.
Tina B| 7.7.11 @ 5:40PM
Big smile here. . . and I also respect your posts Al Adab.
KyMouse| 7.7.11 @ 4:43PM
People who insist on seeing Casey Anthony as "a loving mother" remind me of my brother's mother-in-law, who made this comment after OJ was arrested for butchering his wife:
"He must have loved her very much."
Tina B| 7.7.11 @ 4:45PM
Dude!
Lowell| 7.7.11 @ 4:48PM
Failing to report your baby missing for 31 days is aggravated child abuse, which this "jury" found her not guilty of. Lying to the police about your missing child didn't lead this "jury" to find her guilty of at least knowing something about how, when, and why the child went missing. Best sign outside the Orange County courthouse "Somewhere a village is missing 12 idiots". And that village is in Pinellas County.
Mike Giles| 7.10.11 @ 11:36AM
So what would have been your opinion had she immediately reported it to the police, and later the child turned up dead? Who do you think they would have pointed the finger of suspicion at then? I ask, because too many people here act as if reporting the child missing would have done anything to change their opinion of the mother being responsible.
Tina B| 7.7.11 @ 4:59PM
Yep.
emo| 7.7.11 @ 5:11PM
I am glad she got off. I am really looking forward to her porno
Tina B| 7.7.11 @ 5:17PM
I think I know why you're emo, emo. Try to get a real life.
Oldefarte| 7.7.11 @ 5:17PM
Mark: I NOT out of my fighting league on Florida, as I am a former resident of that state and as such am fully aware of its nature [which is mostly as I previously described]. Take care, and don't eat too many oranges [they tend to create THE EXCREMENTS]!!!!!!!
Mark Shepler | 7.7.11 @ 7:35PM
Hey OldeFarte,
I was just teasing you, man 'cause I knew it'd rile you but if you say so!
What part did you live in?
Also, you oughta well know that we natives (and I'm a real one) don't often eat the oranges. FL oranges are best for juice. CA oranges are for eating.
Regards. :)
Oldefarte| 7.8.11 @ 12:48PM
Mark: I lived for awhile in West Palm Beach [after my employer transferred me from New Orleans], which was paradise to me. The weather/scenery is absolutely beautiful, and Florida has got to be one of the greatest places to live in the world [it's beaches beat California's by a country mile]. The drive along A1A is mermerizing in it splendor and beauty. As I previously procalimed, Florida is very liberal [compared to the rest of the south, that is], mostly from its southern half [while the panhandle is fairly conservative]. I'm fairly sure Casey would have been convicted in say Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi [and definately so in Texas, where I think she may end up post release]. Anyway, Florida oranges are the best and I'll gladly take their agricultural products over anything from the west coast. Take care!!!!!!!!!
Michael L. Hauschild| 7.7.11 @ 5:55PM
Several things; how can there be any doubt that a serious crime was committed. (1) The right person was charged with the wrong crime (those involved repeat this over and over and they were there), (2) the prosecution rolled the dice, and instead of seven/eleven or a point they came up with snake eyes (those involved repeat this over and over and they were there), (3) that jury had a good foreman, and followed the instructions provided by the Judge. As I stated there is no doubt a crime was committed, a child is dead the mother will answer eventually. But for that jury to execute the mother without the evidence would have made them no better, they too would have neglected their duty; they too would have killed someone wrongfully. THAT is why “innocent until proven guilty” sometimes releases the culpable, had that jury brought a capital verdict and the mother had simply tried to cover up a drowning they would have been standing beside her on that final judgment.
John II| 7.7.11 @ 6:38PM
At this point there seems to have been a long enough pause for a sum-up. What does the TAS jury conclude?
1. Casey Anthony is obviously guilty as sin but technically not guilty.
2. Casey Anthony will pay for her miscreant ways eventually; in fact, it's clear to anyone with eyes to see that she's already in the hell she's concocted for herself.
Given my literary-philosophical sense, I can't help liking the second part better. And now back to "Crime and Punishment" (1935), a fair rendering of the Dostoyevsky brooder. The French version made the same year was considered more chic, so to speak, by the critics, but only Peter Lorre in the American version comes off as the perfect Casey--er, I mean, Raskolnikov.
Tina B| 7.7.11 @ 7:15PM
Remember now, there were two lesser counts in addition to the murder 1 count. I believe that she was absolutely guilty of criminal child neglect, which as I understood Judge Belvin Perry to say constitutes (1) aggravated child abuse and (2)aggravated manslaughter. The aggravation being Casey's constant lying to police so that they were unable to search for a baby girl missing for the first 31 days.
Sorry about the lack of details regarding the manner and moment of the death, but it occured under Casey's care. No doubts there. Even if an accident took her life, no attempt to find, help or even bury her child was made by the mother.
Seems obvious to me, but like Dr_X above, I don't think I'd ever be selected for a murder trial. I have way too many opinions, and they are all conservative.
Naturalborn Texican| 7.7.11 @ 10:30PM
31 DAYS???????? 31 freakin' DAYS????? I would have been out tearing up the neighborhood, knocking on every door, stopping people on the street to ask "have you seen my baby???"
What the heck was she doing all that time?I'm sure we could all guess....
The woman should be fixed before she has another sweet, innocent little baby to ...misplace.
Mike Giles| 7.10.11 @ 11:44AM
Had she reported it. Torn the neighborhood to pieces. Stopped and questioned strangers on the street. Worn sack cloth and ashes. And prayed publicly and repeatedly for the safe return of her child. The moment the child turned up dead. She would have been charged and tried exactly as she was. Only people would be talking about her "phoney" act. This isn't so much about her, as it is about no one seemingly paying for the death of the child.
Tina B| 7.7.11 @ 11:18PM
You're right there, She wrote letters from jail saying she couldn't wait to wear fancy lingerie, and hopes to have another child, maybe to adopt one, ala angelina and madonna, she's got plans.
What's that Hebrew saying . . .do you want to see God laugh? just tell him your plans .
On the other hand, "Seek first the Kingdom of God, and its righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you," as well as "Delight youselves in the Lord, and He will give you the desires of your heart. Oddly enough (haha) the more you allow youself to be fully delighted in Him, the Lord has made changes in the nature of your desires, and they are now such that he can grant you all of them. I've see this change in my closest friends and families and it is so cool.
So Casey, girl, get you a Bible and find a good Bible teaching church, get on at least yer knees, although I have had to get all the way down on my face, spread legged like Martin Luther. I am more gripped by His greatness when I'm flat down on the floor. It's hard to get back up these days but It is a small submission in respect to His greatness and my great need for him to move in my life.
Try it Casey, humble yourself and He will hear you. Better do it soon. very soon the world will be calling again, and louder than before, and it will be seductive to you, girl. Run. And run to the only One who can really help you. Run to Jesus.
POST American| 7.7.11 @ 11:22PM
AD NAUSEUM attention given to this
latest, rather routine, Tavistock Institute
DE-moralization and DIS-traction op.
Meanwhile, anyone heard anything about
the greatest world nuclear disaster in history
that's still pumping away (Fukishima)?
Or those MASSIVE saturations of the skies
with Cadmium/Barium and Aluminum Oxide
CHEM-trails?
Or the gargantuan soft-kill being perpetrated
by saturation of the public food chain with
GMO?
sunglasses | 7.8.11 @ 4:04AM
And in 2010 we elected Republican supermajorities in both Houses, a Republican gov., Sec of State, Treasurer, AG and just about anybody who matters in Tallahassee.
http://www.summer-products.com
weddingdress | 7.8.11 @ 4:33AM
On the other hand, "Seek first the Kingdom of God, and its righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you," as well as "Delight youselves in the Lord, and He will give you the desires of your heart. Oddly enough (haha) the more you allow youself to be fully delighted in Him, the Lord has made changes in the nature of your desires, and they are now such that he can grant you all of them. I've see this change in my closest friends and families and it is so cool.
Steve A| 7.8.11 @ 9:10AM
To all of you out there applauding the "WISDOM" of this magnificent jury, I have a message from Scott Peterson's defense attorney: He wants to know if you are available to sit on Scott's jury for a re-do.
I mean, after all, they did not "prove" how Laci Peterson died. Perhaps Scott found her floating in the pool, panicked & lied to police & went & dumped her in the bay. All Scott was guilty of was "bad behavior" (lied to police, his family, cheated with the girlfriend, lied to the girlfriend etc.) This guy should appeal & ask for a jury pool of TAS readers to sit & clap for justice when he walks.
Radioman777| 7.8.11 @ 9:58AM
Sometimes the innocent are convicted and sometimes the guilty go free. Get over it! What this particular case seems to be turning into is a modern day Oxbow Incident, where a young woman, likely guilty of at least manslaughter, escapes conviction and is then pursued by a lynch mob led by various and sundry legal wannabees and has-beens. Recently a man was released from prison after serving something in the neighborhood of 20 years for a crime he didn't commit. Where's the outrage there? Clearly justice is whatever the media lynch mob determines it to be at the moment.
Steve A| 7.8.11 @ 11:10AM
Radio, You have convinced me. I think we should let them all out just to be sure...
Radioman777| 7.8.11 @ 2:02PM
Obviously you completely misunderstood what I was saying. The converse of your feeble attempt at snideness is that maybe we should merely dispense with trials altogether and impose the death penalty for charges large and small. Verdict first! Trial later!
skip| 7.8.11 @ 6:21PM
You mean like the 53 million self-evidently created equal, and endowed with unalenable rights, who are 'legally' aborted?
Bob K.| 7.8.11 @ 10:12AM
Funny, I always thought that one was innocent until proven guilty. She was not proven guilty but the press says she is not innocent never the less.
The press must see more opportunity to make money off this and keep the public's mind off Obama, the upcoming elections, and the economy.
So far it is working on this very (so called) Conservative website. I'll bet Albert Regnery loves this!
Steve A| 7.8.11 @ 11:08AM
Bob K, I'm sure you would feel exactly the same way if Caylee was your daughter & you went out of town for 3 months & came back & your wife forgot to call it in that she was missing.
Mike Giles| 7.10.11 @ 11:52AM
So where is her Casey's husband/Caylee's father?
Tina B| 7.8.11 @ 11:49AM
You are both basically correct on some levels. But. . .I am still learning, in my old age, the difference between justice and the Law, and between truth and the Law. For many years I assumed the three, truth, justice and the US Law (Constitution?) were one and the same. Silly me.
I am awakened now, eyes open. I am oh so glad I have a Creator and close friend who is totally truthful, totally just, and has His own Law which will ultimately supercede all of Mankind's Laws. In addition He has infinite Wisdom and Mercy. I live thankful to God for that, and so, I believe, should Casey Anothony.
e cowan| 7.8.11 @ 2:05PM
I have a question:
in our current system of jurisprudence, is is required that jurors leave their common sense at home while they serve?
I can't believe that anybody with a modicum of common sense, would not have found her guilty of child abuse. Surely not telling anyone that her child had been misplaced for a month and then lying about where she might be, thereby prolonging the time it took to locate the little girl, must constitute abuse.
As Dicken's character Mr Bumble said '...the law is an ass...', but do juries have to be idiots in order to serve?
W| 7.9.11 @ 2:00PM
lawyers say "do you want to be tried by 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty?"
But people want to get on the celebrity trials like OJ, Casey Anthony, Michael Jackson. they can make money selling their stories
Tina B| 7.8.11 @ 2:45PM
e c
Apparently.
apodoca| 7.8.11 @ 10:24PM
Neumayr's article is in search of an argument. He thinks trashing the jurors is it, but no. The point is that the demands of the American Constitution, wrt to the trial of citizen, have been met. The jury decided based on the evidence, rather than on philosophical musings about abortion and other treats that Neumayr deems should have been part of deliberations, that the Anthony woman was not guilty.
And no, Neumayr, the jury was not comprised of idiots; they do know the difference between innocence and not guilty.
What about Neumayr himself? Does he know that juries are required to find defendants guilty or not guilty?
Tina B| 7.9.11 @ 5:09PM
I can't bellieve I am still reading these posts, and replying
POST American| 7.10.11 @ 2:17AM
MEANWHILE, infant mortality in the just
in stats from the month following the initial
Fukishima (possibly HAARP manipulated)
world nuclear disaster ---is UP 35%.
(NW U.S. and western Canada)
Keep following the Tavistock-Rockefeller
media set ups kiddies!
------------Just keep a goin'!
----------------------Oprah n' Prozak
----------------------------Just keep a goin'!
Oldefarte| 7.10.11 @ 11:44AM
Maybe the mother was stopped at a traffic/red light and the child opened the car door, crawled out of the car and wandered over to the roadside, laid down and died. Maybe also that THE COW JUMPED OVER THE MOON, WHILE THE DISH RAN AWAY WITH THE SPOON!!!!!!!!!!
Mike Giles| 7.10.11 @ 12:02PM
BTW, one last thing. What was the fact that Casey was a "party girl" evidence of? Much is made of it, but I don't see where it fits in as evidence?
e cowan| 7.10.11 @ 7:34PM
I found this on Florida Child Abuse Laws:
http://law.findlaw.com/state-l.....e/florida/
"What Constitutes Abuse:
Willful or threatened act resulting in physical, mental, or sexual injury or harm, causing or likely to cause impairment of physical, mental, or emotional health"
Wouldn't ignoring the fact that your child had been missing for 31 days and then lying about her whereabouts constitute "abuse" under this definition?
;....Willful or threatened act resulting in physical, mental, or sexual injury or harm,.......'
Sounds like it to me.
If not - why not.
JLK| 7.10.11 @ 8:28PM
Partying while your child has been supposedly abducted is not normal behavior.Like putting duct tape on you dead daughter after finding her in the pool (admitted to in court by Casey,through her lawyer).
Tina B| 7.11.11 @ 6:53AM
e cowan and JFK, you are both spot on. Where were you guys when Florida was looking for jurors with a brain?
weddingdress | 7.12.11 @ 5:16AM
Neumayr's article is in search of an argument. He thinks trashing the jurors is it, but no. The point is that the demands of the American Constitution, wrt to the trial of citizen, have been met. The jury decided based on the evidence, rather than on philosophical musings about abortion and other treats that Neumayr deems should have been part of deliberations, that the Anthony woman was not guilty.
And no, Neumayr, the jury was not comprised of idiots; they do know the difference between innocence and not guilty.
What about Neumayr himself? Does he know that juries are required to find defendants guilty or not guilty?
e cowan| 7.12.11 @ 3:06PM
Then standard for guilty or not guilty is: beyond a reasonable doubt.
NOT to an absolute CSI certainty.