Replies

“There is no reasonable explanation for the mother’s behavior once her daughter “went missing”. The mother began telling people a lie ... then more lies ... then more. She made up a story about a nanny who was watching her daughter. She said the nanny took the daughter out of town. She said the nanny had a car wreck and was in the hospital so her daughter had to stay out of town.When the mother’s family began asking where the daughter was, she denied her daughter was missing. To pretend this lady did not cause her daughter’s death is shameful.”

There’s no doubt she was lying. She was convicted of those charges. I also personally believe that she killed her daughter. But ultimately there was not enough proof presented to the jury to show BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that she killed her daughter. It’s not an issue of how shady it seemed or even how likely it was she killed her daughter but rather whether there are any other reasonable explainations that do not involve her being the murderer. Given the evidence presented the jury believed, correctly so given the limited amount of evidence presented, that this standard could not be met. It’s beyond unfortunate that a likely guilty woman got off with her crimes but that is just how our system works in trying to simultaneously protect the innocent. It’s not pretending whether she killed or didn’t kill her daughter. Ultimately this issue is secondary to one and one only that governs the case: has the prosecution proven beyond any reasonable doubt and based solely on the evidence presented to the jury that she killed her daughter. The answer is no, the prosecution failed to meet this high burden.

“If your child walked from the kitchen into the living room with cookie crumbs on his mouth and all over his hands and you then noticed the lid was off the cookie jar and several cookies were missing, I’m assuming you couldn’t chastise your child because there was only circumstantial evidence he ate the cookies.”

It’s not just a circumstantial v. direct issue. It’s entirely possible to support convictions primarily or even solely on circumstantial evidence (a lot of courts will refuse to issue death penalty over it though. Instead it is a quality of evidence issue. The circumstantial evidence presented, by itself, did not show a case with 95-99% certainty that she killed her daughter and nothing else could explain it. Again the circumstantial evidence is helpful and, if it was valuable enough, could play a critical role in a case like this. However, ultimately it failed to address all holes in the prosecution’s theory. The fact the defense’s theory was utter rubbish is irrelevant as the burden lies with the prosecution not the defense.

“Let us all mourn the death of common sense.”

No it’s not a death of common sense. In many ways that died many years ago in other areas. Instead a case like this reminds us all that while we try to be as just as possible there remain holes in our legal system. For that matter there remain holes in all human made systems. Ultimately there is only one perfect arbiter of justice and Casey will have to face her crimes before Him. Before then our mortal court systems, as a cost of protecting the innocent from wrongful accusal and imprisonment, have let her off the hook for the major charges because they could not be sufficiently proven by the prosecution.

“But ultimately there was not enough proof presented to the jury to show BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that she killed her daughter.”

How so? You are able to make inferences based on evidence or the lack of evidence. For example, there is no direct evidence that the child at the cookies. There are missing cookies and there is a child with cookie crumbs on hand and mouth. You would require more evidence because you are assuming that there are other “reasonable” explanations for the missing cookies and the visible crumbs.

The physical evidence showed that the dead daughter had been in the mother’s car trunk. The mother lied to everyone about her daughter’s whereabouts.

You want a videotape, or an exact time and sequence of death. That is not required by law.

If there is a “reasonable doubt” can you give it to me? What is a reasonable explanation for the mother’s behavior? We know she lied about her daughter’s whereabouts after she went missing and we know she partied hard during that time. We know her dead daughter’s body had been placed in her car trunk at some point. So, let’s hear your reasonable doubt. Dazzle me.

I don’t think it is a death of common sense.

I look at it this way: The entire, randomly selected group of 12 people on that jury could not ALL be idiots. And they came to the conclusion pretty damned quickly.

That tells me that if you filter out all of the crap that you and I heard on the TV, radio and newspapers, then the prosecution did not present enough evidence to tie her directly to the crime.

I’ve sat on a couple of juries (criminal not civil) I was really surprised at the amount of stuff that we did not hear. And, I was kind of surprised at the deliberations: The people on the jury were smart and did not buy into a lot of garbage that was thrown at us.

I had done a lot of work in organizational behavior and I was looking at the process with a “professional” interest as well. I did not see “groupthink”, nor did anyone try to bully anyone else.

In fact, we had one woman that was not “sure” at the start. In the end, several of us stopped the process to really make sure she was OK with the guilty verdict. We all said, at different times, that we had all the time in the world, and WE wanted to make sure she did not feel like she was pushed into the verdict.

Using that as a background, I feel pretty comfortable that the jury did their job as they saw it.

Do I think she killed the kid? Yeah, probably. BUT I think it was probably more akin to manslaughter and not first degree murder. And I think she freaked. And I think her Dad helped with the disposal.

Is she a weirdo? Yes. Is her family dysfunctional? Yes.

The search teams screwed up when they did not want to get their feet wet when that guy called in August and said he thought he saw the body. If you want to think about devine providence, that was it. And it moment passed without the police seeing it for what it was. Because no one wanted to get their feet wet.

But I think if there was a lesser charge, below aggravated manslaughter, they would have gotten a conviction. My guess is eventually, after the jury signs the book deal, that they will say just that.

And yes, I think the jury was together so long as a group, they developed the same camaraderie that you would get in any closed group: Military, Fraternity, etc. They will act as a group for a while. And I bet they will sign a book deal.

Finally, I think we will see Casey on the cover of some magazines. I think she will be on Oprah’s new channel sometime this fall. I predict she will pose naked. She will be a celebrity of the sorts of Loraina Bobbit (sic), Tanya Harding, and the Long Island Lolita Amy Fisher. And even in the sense of Lizzie Borden.

In the end here are the lessons I think we should all learn: When the notice for jury duty comes in the mail, embrace it. Be involved, and use YOUR common sense (not yours specifically-—but the generic, third person YOUR). And, attention to detail and being willing to get your feet wet are essential to solving problems.

Casey Anthony, or Tot Mom, is now part of American Pop/Crime Culture. And she will be richer than you and I for making a horrible mistake in her life. I hope she has gotten some smarts and keeps herself clean and quiet for the next fifty years.