More thoughts on the Casey Anthony verdict
As I wrote yesterday, I didn’t follow the Casey Anthony trial.
But playing a bit of catchup today, and reading an admittedly brief roundup of news about it, I offer these observations:
Our justice system emphasizes people’s actions, not who or what they are. In other words, although most murderers are lying scumbags, not all (or even most) lying scumbags are murderers. Casey Anthony seems to be a lying scumbag, but the act of murder (or manslaughter) would have to have been proven for a conviction. The problems with the proof the prosecution offered seems to have been:
(a) lack of cause of death. This does not make conviction impossible, but it does make it difficult.
(b) shaky or incomplete physical evidence tying Casey Anthony to the corpse.
(c) lack of evidence of any prior child abuse or even mistreatment of the child. The evidence on this score was all for after the child’s death, and it was inferred from Casey’s partying and especially her failure to report the child’s disappearance/death in a timely fashion, plus her lies about a babysitter. But although this goes to some sort of coverup (and a very suspicious lack of grief at the horrendous event), it still runs up against the lack of a prior motive to the alleged killing.
(d) many people have noted that the popularity of such shows as CSI accustom jury members to an unrealistically high standard of forensic proof. I agree. But this case only met a very low standard.
(e) the defendant was a pretty, young woman. This can mean the jury was sympathetic and reluctant to convict. However, it could also have worked against her: “temptress,” “selfish mother,” “amoral slut.”
(f) the prosecution erred by not emphasizing manslaughter, by far their strongest charge.
The case reminds me most (although it’s hardly identical) with the Susan Smith case. Smith was not a sympathetic figure to most people, nor is Casey Anthony. Like Anthony, Smith initally lied (remember her sad pleas for the supposed kidnapper to return her children?) through her teeth, and her attorneys also alleged she was the victim of parental abuse when young (in her case, the abuser had confessed). The motive somewhat resembled the prosecution’s allegations about Anthony: Smith was trying to keep her lover, a man who apparently didn’t want the burden of children. Unlike in the Anthony case, there was a lot of physical evidence against Smith, including an obvious cause of death and intact bodies, and Smith confessed before trial. Her defense was her terrible mental state, and the defense alleged she had originally planned to kill herself along with the children but spontaneously jumped out at the last minute. It was all to no avail for Smith, who is serving a life sentence.
It seems highly unfair that a child murderer—which Casey Anthony may indeed be—could get away virtually scot free. Unfortunately, murderers get away quite often, due to lack of evidence. It’s not unusual for the police to have a very good idea who committed a crime, but to lack the evidence to bring a case to trial. In Casey Anthony’s case they may have brought charges impatiently and prematurely.
[ADDENDUM: And speaking of Susan Smith—sheesh!]
Is it possible to think that someone almost certainly did it, but that the jury almost certainly did the right thing (I really haven’t been paying attention) in acquitting?
For the sake of American Constitutional protections, they couldn’t ignore the poor showing from the prosecution and convict on the basis that she seems like a horrible person.
Also, I think the family was complicit in the way the defense tore them to shreds. Anything to get her off.
@ Liz:
No.
I don’t know if you watched any of the trial at all but there was no “poor showing from the prosecution.”
There was a wealth of circumstantial evidence presented in a very organized detailed manner, with many experts to confirm the evidence such was called for. Much of the evidence proved that there was no one else who could have murdered Caylee!
That is the precise reason that most of tthe public was/is absolutely SHOCKED at the verdict.
The only possible reason the jury came to the verdict that they did is they bought Defense attorney’s opening statement claims which were wholly fabricated supposition based on zero evidence (which is why no evidence was ever proffered by the Defense to bolster these claims). More, it is precisely why the judge, during jury instructions, specifically told members of the jury they could NOT consider these claims as truth because not even a scintilla of evidence was ever presented.
However, the only juror who spoke after the trial, an alterenate juror, in agreement with the verdict based his decision on the fact that “it was an accident that snowballed out of control,” a phrase that came from the mouth of a woman who the defense claimed had an affair with George Anthony (Casey’s father). Casey’s attorney also declared George was a child molester who molested her as a child. He said the same thing about Casey’s brother, and even suggested that either George or Lee (brother) was Caylee’s father! (even after the results of DNA tests proved that they absolutely could not have been!)
What’s rather ironic is that this psychopath of a mother, won her freedom by means of a defense attorney who used blatant lies — with zero backup to even suggest there was even a grain of truth to them (because there was none), and the jury chose to give credence to Casey’s and her attorney’s phony assertions over a mountain of provable circumstantial evidence.
There was much more evidence about Casey’s unsavory past which rightly was not allowed to be presented because it would have been too prejudicial. Although with this jury, it would not have mattered.
(I actually had started to list as much of the overwhelming circumstantial evidence as I could recall…..but the bottom line is that it is moot. The case is over)
What one takes away is that a defense attorney may claim anything he/she desires to, so long as that claim cannot be disproved (as was the case when the Defense called Casey’s mother to the stand to lie about the chloroform searches on the family computer. Lie she did, but the Prosecution easily proved that she could not possibly have done sthe search, as she was easily proved to have been at work at the time in question.)
I’m not sure where the line begins and ends between the call for presenting a vigorous defense and outright lying, and, often in the process, suborning perjury (with no consequence).
That is one of the reasons I chose not to become a lawyer. I’m a crummy liar to begin with, and I intensely dislike being made a fool of because someone else is lying.
The prosecution swung for the fences and struck out. They should have included a fall back position of child neglect. Any parent knows if your child comes up missing after school that panic sets in and you call the police immediately. Parents are responsible for supervising young children. The fact that the baby was missing (as in dead) for a month and not reported is surely evidence of neglect.
The grandparents know their daughter killed their grand child. They covered for her because they thought she might face execution.
although most murderers are lying scumbags, not all (or even most) lying scumbags are murderers.
exactly
It’s not our legal system this time, it’s the incompetent detectives.
She is guilty. But out justice system requires proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. The police investigation failed to supply the necessary evidence.
The citizens in Florida should demand firings of the involved investigators.
Geran, it’s not “proof beyond a shadow of a doubt,” it’s proof beyond a reasonable doubt, at least in California.
The defense likes to redefine the doubt standard, and prosecutors always have to explain after the defense closing argument that it’s not some impossibly-high, hard-to-achieve burden of proof.
Juries struggle with it, and it sounds like the defense in the Anthony case succeeded in getting the jurors to accept a burden of proof that was higher than that actually required by the law.
Mr Frank, I agree with you. It is easily deduced from provable facts that Casey Anthony neglected to protect her child as a normal mother would be expected to. It cannot, unfortunately, be proven that she committed pre-meditated murder. I think the prosecution should have gone for criminal child neglect. That was easily shown. I don’t know if that would include negligent manslaughter, but the charge of first degree murder was just too high a hill to climb. So, as a result of overreaching by the prosecution, the defendant goes scot free.
That said, there will be punishment. She will not be able to resume her life in Florida. Her parents apparently do not want her back under their roof. Sad to say, but there are death threats and she will probably need to look over her shoulder for many years to come. Also, considering her lying scumbag proclivities, she will almost certainly run afoul of the law again at some point. Not quite the “Bella Vida” that she wanted so badly.
The media loves a narrative. A good story needs a villain, a victim and a hero. All most of us know about the trial is what the media has presented to us — a very incomplete picture of reality. I think most of us are aware that the media purposefully lies and distorts all the time motivated by political bias, a desire to create readership and the ratings game.
Therefore I would be careful about conclusions about the guilt or innocence of the defendant, the competence of the jury, the strategy of the defense and the prosecution which are based on and drawn from the media coverage.
Even so, from the admittedly fragmented knowledge I possess it seems to me that the capital murder charge was not proven. Not proven circumstantially and not directly. If the cause of death is not known it cannot be known whether the child’s death was accidental, due to a fit of temper, simple negligence or coldly premeditated. This fact alone would have created reasonable doubt in my mind.
Perhaps the prosecution would have had better luck had they not overreached. Perhaps if the police had discovered the body when it was first pointed out by the meter reader more forensic evidence would have been present. If, if, if … If I were really interested I might read a post-trial book or two written by reputable authors but I’m not so I won’t.
I don’t believe we have heard the last of the defendant. She will get a book deal, will be paid for interviews, etc. From now on anything she does, no matter how prosaic or irrelevant, will be in the news. One of my definitions of Hell would be to become famous.
I have no knowledge of the facts. Didn’t watch, wasn’t interested. Still not, except as to the extent that this is a commentary on our justice system.
First. It is getting harder and harder to put together a jury of anyone’s peers. Jury duty has become a burden to be avoided; and it is easily avoided by anyone who tries.
Second. I imagine this particular jury was compromised by the fact that they were snatched from their homes and transported to a distant city where they were sequestered for six weeks. Is that even legal? Why wasn’t the jury from the same locale as the trial? Media’s hysterical hype. Why wasn’t the venue changed to the jury member’s home county? Convenience for the lawyers? Why do juries have to be sequestered for extended periods? See the previous comment on the media.
Third. Why is there so much outrage at the verdict from people who really have no idea of the essential facts of the case? See previous comment on media. Why is Anthony’s life in danger if she is released? And if she is incarcerated and accessible to other prisoners? Yep.
Fourth. I am firmly convinced that our judicial system has been badly compromised by politically ambitious prosecutors who are more interested in scalps than in justice. I don’t know if that is the case here; but several people have commented on Prosecutorial over reach. Prosecutors don’t appear to go for trials and charges they can prove. If there is publicity involved, they swing for the fences. I think that, like many baseball sluggers, they are willing to risk strikeouts in trade for the occasional home run.
I did not follow the case, either. There is the issue of her not reporting her child missing for 31 days, I believe. She was supposedly out partying, etc. during this time as opposed to what almost every loving parent would otherwise have been doing. She’s gonna need book deals and interview cash. Who would hire her? Who in their right mind would date her, much less marry her, even be her friend? As a father of two beautiful daughters and a wonderful son, I am troubled. That poor child. Regardless if accident or malice, there was no one there to protect someone who needed it. And someone took her lifeless body and dropped it in a plastic bag and threw it in a swamp?
Right, wrong, or indifferent, I would be more than pleased to be able to find who did it, rip their head off, and shit in it.
“Therefore I would be careful about conclusions about the guilt or innocence of the defendant, the competence of the jury, the strategy of the defense and the prosecution which are based on and drawn from the media coverage.”
Amen Grackle.
For everyone who is decrying the not guilty verdict -have no fear. Casey Anthony may have gotten away with murder. She may even profit financially from it. But she will never again be truly free. Her notoriety will not allow her a moment’s peace – even if she hasn’t a speck of remorse over her daughter’s death. And she will be shunned by all but the most crass and superficial society. I don’t think I would be prescient to accurately predict an unhappy ending to Casey Anthony’s story.
I am surprised to see so many sensible commenters adopting the Scottish verdict–“Not Proven”–and weighing in on the intricacies of the prosecutions strategy. Probably some of them and perhaps all of them know more about the case and the law than I.
Whether this woman murdered her child has some degree of residual uncertainty. What probability would we put on her innocence? 1%? 10%? 40%? And where is the right line before the state (as the agent of society) should be able to assign accountability?
It’s a good thing I’m wasn’t a juror on this case. For my part, if the probability of guilt gets high enough, I would consider the surrounding behavioral evidence–unprincipled defense, repeated lies, failure to testify, obstruction–as confirming the likelihood of guilt. When your child disappears and you do nothing about it and go driving around with a dead body in your trunk, you have some explaining to do. I wonder what the other commenters would have done, had they been on the jury.
The legal professionals may exalt abstract rules detached from the reality of the situation. The danger is that people generally lose respect for the institutions and administration of justice. It’s not that we let some of the guilty go free to protect the innocent; when there is uncertainty of the type we have been describing, it may be that it is all a crap shoot, that the guilty go free and the innocent are punished at random. We are on the road to Kafka here.
[ADDENDUM: And speaking of Susan Smith—sheesh!]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIb6AZdTr-A
Manson’s serving life on less evidence, than what they had on this snake. However, Manson and Anthony have something in common. They both represent the evil degenerate side of their generation; Manson the hippies and Anthony the clubbers. The one thing that never came up in the prosecution case was how abortion has created a “Just get rid of it” menatlity in young women, but that would’ve ment putting society on trial as well as Anthony, but it’s a menatlity that’s becoming more prevalent. Just in the last month we’ve had a mother microwave her baby and one that stabbed her new born through the heart and it’ll get worse now that they think they can get away with it. As for Anthony she’ll be dead in 3 years either from an overdose or suicide.
Hmm…here in Michigan we just sentenced a guy to life in prison w/no parole for murdering his wife. No body was ever found, just circumstantial evidence.
http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2011/07/dateline_nbc_to_air_story_abou.html
It’s somewhat reassuring to hear the jurors explain that they were sickened by their verdict of not guilty, since they believed Casey Anthony had killed her child, but that this was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
The only good thing to come out of this trail may be Casey’s fame/notoriety will keep her activities under a harsh spotlight, and that every false move will be recorded. I pray she never has another child.
She may well get a reality show. Maybe a frequent paid guest on what replaced Jerry Springer.
A book deal. You can’t profit from a crime, but she didn’t commit, legally, a crime.
If she’d been convicted of criminal neglect, she wouldn’t be able to adopt, I presume. Now?
RE: Susan Smith story..””A second prison guard has been arrested for allegedly having sex with Susan Smith””…””punishable by up to 10 years in prison””
She must have sunshine coming outta that thing.
Hmm…here in Michigan we just sentenced a guy to life in prison w/no parole for murdering his wife. No body was ever found, just circumstantial evidence.
Went to the site, read the article, followed the links in the article and read those articles.
Question: Is the confession, guilty plea and turning state’s witness of an accomplice considered “circumstantial?”
http://tinyurl.com/3dxqkpq
Manson’s serving life on less evidence, than what they had on this snake. I>
Much the same question as my previous post: Is the confession, guilty plea and turning state’s witness of an accomplice considered “less evidence?”
http://tinyurl.com/3fnqjl6
grackle: I assume your question was somewhat rhetorical, but the confession of an accomplice is not circumstantial, and in the Manson case it certainly was neither weak nor “less.” See this.
In the Manson case there was also no ambiguity about cause of death, whether a murder had occurred, or who committed the murders, unlike in the Anthony case. The only question was how much involvement Manson had in the murders. There was ample evidence that his involvement was enormous. See this and especially this.
Totally screwed up on the hypertext in the last comment, which should read as follows:
Manson’s serving life on less evidence, than what they had on this snake.
Much the same question as my previous comment: Is the confession, guilty plea and turning state’s witness of an accomplice considered “less evidence?”
http://tinyurl.com/3fnqjl6
grackle: see my comment above.
They had much more evidence on Manson than on Anthony.
I predict that eventually Anthony will crash and burn somewhat like O.J. Simpson did. She’s unable to avoid criminal conduct just like he wasn’t.
Thanks for the links, Neo.
The Anthony case was a bonanza for the media.
I am a news junkie, primarily of political news, but if you watched the news at all you were bound to be exposed to the Anthony case.
I noticed that the media had her tried and convicted before she was arrested. After her arrest it turned into a feeding frenzy worthy of a school of sharks. The media was anticipating a guilty verdict and raised the public’s expectations — unfounded expectations as it turns out. And we all know how angry the media(and parts of the public) becomes when they are disappointed.
But the defendant got lucky in that the prosecution for whatever reason apparently overreached and concentrated their time and energy on what was clearly a weak capital murder charge. Perhaps the prosecution hoped the jury would do their job for them. Now I hear she will be freed on Wednesday.
You know, if you are walking down the street and a stranger hands you a two-year-old you’ve never seen before, you are morally and legally required to show more responsibility for the child than Anthony showed, as the mother.
I totally agree, Richard. At the very least she knew the child was gone, probably knew the child was dead but did all that partying anyway. I don’t even like to think about it.
If you are careful and recruit no accomplices you can probably get away with murder. I read somewhere that Florida is contemplating a law that the parent or guardian has to report a child as missing within a reasonable amount of time. That way if they use time as a way for the body to decompose beyond forensic capability there’s at least something to get them punished.
I didn’t follow the case, but have read articles by lawyers, etc. after the fact. What occurs to me is that when our courts were founded, my guess is MOST murder convictions were based on circumstantial evidence as opposed to direct eyewitness, etc. Whether the direction things have taken is a plus or minus is up for discussion. But there is great paradox that we live in a time like no other when you can be framed for something with what would appear to be irrefutable evidence…DNA, fingerprints, etc., considering the incompetent storing of such items in our bureaucracy and this would seal the deal on guilty. I tend to think that I have a far different perspective on what the words “reasonable doubt” mean. Probably more in line with what the Founders and prior generations believed.
“The adversary system is the greatest engine ever designed” . . .
for determining who has the better lawyer!