Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Furious

Furious

That’s my wif’e’s reaction to the Casey Anthony verdict.  That and spitting mad.

I’ve noticed something in the reactions, admittedly anecdotal.  The reaction from mothers seems to be at a different level than the rest of us.

Am I right about that?

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

I don’t know if the reactions are different or just expressed differently.

Women I know are outraged, the men too but the men are (usually) more apt to try and figure out what went wrong in the trail while the women are wishing all sorts of karmic pay-back on Casey.

oops … trial … (long day)

DINORightMarie | July 7, 2011 at 10:26 pm

I did not follow it, but from occasional media blasts I thought the woman was lying and that she was covering up her daughter’s death.

From what I heard about the prosecution, they dropped the ball. And, from what I gathered about the jury’s verdict, they followed the rules and guidelines they were given to decide guilt for 1st degree murder. Justice worked, although she might have committed the crime, the prosecution failed to do their job.

So, no, I’m not outraged, not flipping out. As a woman, a mother, I am sickened. But I believe in “innocent until proven guilty” and that the prosecution needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt for a capital offense.

Caylee is in heaven, I believe. That is the only mercy in this case. This mother will crack, probably even admit her guilt, one day. I believe it will eat her up inside, that guilt, if she did it. She can’t be tried for the crime in a court, but that type of crime will seep into her soul. If she did it.

The hardest part for everyone involved is the unknown. And the bitterness that grows so foul when you don’t know. You just don’t know…. How exactly did she die? Who dumped her body, wrapped her up in duct tape? Was there something in that trunk for so long, or not? Why would this mother lie, and act like the child’s death was not affecting her?

Such evil is inconceivable. Horrible. Heart and gut wrenching.

(BTW – most of what I’ve learned about this case I read and gathered from you, from Mark Levin, and listening to Sean Hannity. Pretty good information, from some brilliant, sharp minds.) 🙂

Carol Herman | July 7, 2011 at 10:58 pm

Sorry, it’s not a test of motherhood.

Casey Anthony was probably raped as a child. Even though the judge would only allow this evidence in IF she took the stand.

The prosecutor NEVER supplied a cause of death! And, the child didn’t die from duck tape, either.

What has happened, here, is that day time TV took over, and followed this case as if it was a soap.

What you got was gutter journalism.

Also, what seems apparent, just in case law schools are selective enough in their choice of students, the jury system, which looks for more ordinary folk, need to be convinced a murder happened, in the first place.

That there are women who would have hung Casey Anthony for being pretty? You just discovered America?

The three-ring circus around it made sure that I avoided hearing about it as much as possible.

At best, the female– “mother” is too high a title– responded horrifically to a bad situation; at worst, she’s the most vile betrayal humanly possible.
My seeing what the media felt like showing wouldn’t change it one way or another, there’s no controversy over if any of the situations being a good thing, so I avoid it and try to save my sanity.

I wouldn’t be at all surprised that mothers respond more strongly; I notice mothers generally do respond MUCH more strongly when a parent/child relationship is involved. (Kipling nailed it.)

LukeHandCool | July 7, 2011 at 11:38 pm

There is no lower life form on the planet than a human being who would intentionally harm a child. If that makes me a mother, so be it.

LukeHandCool (who has, on occasion, been called a “mothersomethingorother” by the odd rude driver)

Everybody I know couldn’t believe it. You can’t go party after your kid disappears. Also she had numerous imaginary people she had created and told her mother about. The gal’s a nutcase. She’ll be doing other bad things in the news, you watch.

To me (a man) the scary thing is how the jurors seem to have missed the significance of the FACT that the little girl, who was solely in her mother’s custody, ended up in a swamp with duct tape over her mouth and nose. Combining this with the FACT that the mother tried to conceal the little girl’s disappearance for quite some time, with some elaborately concocted lies, tells me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the mother was responsible for the little girl’s death. When kids die in accidents, no innocent person tries to hides their disappearance, put duct tape over their mouth and nose and then throw them in a swamp in a plastic bag. Again, this may be circumstantial, however, anyone with the slightest bit of deductive reasoning skills should have been able to figure this one out.

This leads to another peripheral yet relevant subject. For quite some time now our public schools, controlled by the far left, have been teaching kids WHAT to think instead of teaching them HOW to think. Why are we now surprised when adults seem to exhibit a clear lack of ability to think through things and develop reasonable conclusions. It is also interesting to consider that with increasing globalization, companies are becoming quite large. In order to manage very large enterprises, management has had to engineer discretion OUT of many jobs. For example, at McDonalds, they have a device that dispenses exactly the amount of ketchup management wants on every hamburger served, thereby making sure the employee has no discretion over any part of their job. At many other places of employment, employees simply take what is brought to the cashier, loading dock or other point of processing and they scan the bar code. Is it possible that those in academe have long envisioned what many of us have not seen coming?

Have we not inadvertently been creating a world of automatons as was so gloriously envisioned in Apple’s first Macintosh Commercial in 1984?

The Judge did not allow the jury to consider that Casey Anthony had been sexually abused by her father and brother because there was NO evidence to back it up. I’ve never met Casey but her actions and behavior lead me to believe that the most important person in her life is herself. I wonder if she even has a conscience? Little Caylee is dead and no one has been held to account for that, and that is a travesty of justice. Spitting mad, and thoroughly disgusted by Casey Anthony.

Juba Doobai! | July 8, 2011 at 1:11 am

I don’t know. I learned in grad school not to approach the law leading with emotions but rather with the question “what does the law allow?” That sunk in so deeply that I was able to persuade a relative that cops shooting 51 +/- bullets into a a guy in NYC would result, lawfully, in an acquittal of the cops. He was persuaded enough to mount the argument in a class at college, and he was the only one who took that stance.

When it comes to this case, I mourn the child’s death, but insist that the law as it stands be upheld. The law, and I’m no lawyer, is not about giving us outcomes that we like. It is about rules of evidence and making a clear case to establish the guilt/innocence of a defendant. America is not Europe; defendants here have the presumption of innocence, and the prosecution has to prove guilt. When the prosecution leads with emotion/overweening hubris/some other craziness that prevents them from assessing properly what charges the evidence on hand can support so they get the verdict they want, well, we know what happens. I can’t help but thinking that the prosecution got what it deserved.

As for all those who are screaming for Casey Anthony’s head, well, show me the evidence that establishes her guilt. We know she’s a liar; she was found guilty on four charges of lying to the cops [folks want to hang her for that when they were willing to overlook Bill Clinton’s lying under oath!]. We do not know if she’s a murderer, a paidicide. We might suspect she might be. Absent the proof that she is, we should leave her alone.

This is still America, and a guilty verdict needs to be returned based on the evidence presented, and not on the emotions of the citizenry. People don’t have to like that; they just have to abide by it. The LSM’s actions in feeding the anger of the people is reprehensible and will likely result in Casey Anthony’s hurt. When that happens, it will be a sad day for America because it will point to the gross ignorance of our citizenry who do not know or do not understand that a verdict firmly grounded in evidence is the best protector of our freedom and the best upholder of the rule of law. Without that sort of verdict, anybody can be jailed for anything without any proof that they did anything.

That’s what I’d say to your wife. And I’d keep on responding with logic because the heat of emotion will lead us where we should not go in this matter.

I’m not a mother, but am female, and honestly believe that Casey Anthony got away with murder. There simply is no rational, reasonable explanation for her behavior (such as not bothering to report her child missing for a month, not to mention all the lies) that points in any other direction.

I’m heartbroken for Caylee, especially since there will apparently be no justice in Florida for her, but console myself with the knowledge Casey will face God’s justice.

On a side note, can men come up with an INTELLIGENT explanation for the “she’s pretty, so shouldn’t go to jail” bit I’ve heard from men, in cases other than this. WHY should genetic chance excuse anyone from the consequences of their actions?

Jury “deliberated” for only 11 hours despite a lot of circumstantial evidence pointing toward Casey’s guilt, such as hair of Caylee’s corpse found in trunk of Casey’s car, forensic entomologist’s testimony about coffin flies found also in trunk of car which proved that there was a corpse in there 3-5 days, duct tape found attached to hair remnants on skull, body dumped in trash bags in nearby swamp with bags linked to Anthony home, Casey’s lack of concern in finding Caylee, failure to report her missing, and so on. Motive was same as for the notorious Scott Peterson: desire for freedom from responsibility.

Many believe that this jury got confused about what “reasonable doubt” meant, thinking that any crazy theory that provided any doubt should equate to “reasonable doubt.” I followed the Scott Peterson case which had less circumstantial evidence than this case, yet that jury chose to convict. There was no “forensic” evidence in the Peterson case except for a pair of pliers with Laci’s hair on it which the judge wouldn’t even allow. There was no DNA in the boat and no exact “cause” of death despite the fact that Laci’s body was obviously dumped in the bay. Yet with very little circumstantial evidence, and with defense claiming an unidentified mystery person killed Laci in a case of mistaken identity to try to confuse the jury with “reasonable doubt”, Scott Peterson was convicted. (Defense even tried earlier to claim Laci may have been suicidal and somehow walked into the bay.)

Already some Anthony jurors are talking about their belief in Casey’s guilt but apparently seemed to think that the prosecution needed to supply a CSI-style video or DNA showing exact cause of death. They didn’t apply any reasoning to the evidence, or ask the judge to review any findings during their short “deliberation.” The coroner testified the cause of Caylee’s death was murder which the defense tried to shoot down. The coroner answered defense’s crazy assertions of “accidental death” very well, saying that no one puts duct tape on a person who dies accidentally.

Many feel that the jury just wanted to get out fast and cash in quickly. Already one juror demanded a trip to Disneyland before she’d talk, another has hired a publicist and another won’t speak unless he receives $50,000.

Oh yes, and the jury could have convicted Casey on the lesser charges of manslaughter or child abuse, but they didn’t despite an early 50-50 vote on the jury to do just that. In the end, as one juror weepingly admitted today, he was the lone hold-out and eventually he caved, probably because he just wanted to go home to his wife and kids.

Professor, I think her alleged behavior personally challenges their self-classification as “nurturers”. The same thing can be seen when peers of any other category see one of their own being publicly inappropriate. Group grimace, all way round.

Carol, I must disagree. It is called incest not rape and there is a difference.

Rape is a violent act. Incest is more insidious. A father, brother, uncle or cousin comes to you at a very young age and does things to you and you do not feel like you can tell them to stop. You know it doesn’t feel right but you trust these people. These are the people that would/should protect you. If you go to someone they don’t believe you or they don’t want to hear it. It steals your innocence. It twists your thinking. What it doesn’t do is excuse future behavior that might hurt a child.

I don’t know what happened. I think she is guilty of something. I don’t think that because she is pretty.

I have lived with demons in my mind because of incest and depression. I raised three children mostly on my own because my husband traveled. I did not have any family close to help me with the pressure. My children helped me fight those demons because of my love for them.

When I heard one of the jurors say she thought they probably would have found Casey guilty if it hadn’t been for the death penalty I felt justified in my feelings. They believed she was guilty.

There was no cause of death but the child did not die from duct tape?

Maybe the Professor can comment on this? Since I’m not a lawyer I don’t grasp the nuance of the Law where double jeopardy is considered for charging Casey with a related lesser crime they could prove. That crime is called Depraved Indifference. i.e. Failure to Render Assistance to the Sick and Injured

If I see a person laying on the ground, have access to a phone but fail to call 911, haven’t I committed a crime? If failure to report a crime is a crime, then wouldn’t it be reasonable to assume it it also a crime to fail to render assistance according to your means such as making a phone call? Casey Anthony at minimum by her own lawyer’s admission, if we are to believe her version of events, upon finding Kaylee drowned in the pool failed to call 911 for emergency help. Since Casey was not a medical professional or trained in CPR, no one can expect her to give CPR. NOR could Casey be expected to reasonably determine whether Kaylee was indeed dead much less determine if she was beyond emergency medical intervention which could reverse her situation. Even with CPR training, you are not of sufficient medical knowledge to categorically determine whether a person is dead beyond emergency intervention. Current CPR training to my understanding is to NOT perform CPR if you haven’t seen the pulseless person collapse, your response is to call 911.

Depraved Indifference: http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/depraved-indifference/

“To constitute depraved indifference, the defendant’s conduct must be ‘so wanton, so deficient in a moral sense of concern, so lacking in regard for the life or lives of others, and so blameworthy as to warrant the same criminal liability as that which the law imposes upon a person who intentionally causes a crime. Depraved indifference focuses on the risk created by the defendant’s conduct, not the injuries actually resulting.”

Or how about Criminal Negligence: http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/criminal-negligence/

    Here is a paper on Good Samaritan Laws: http://www.lotsofessays.com/viewpaper/1690580.html

    The first type protects those who render emergency aid from being held liable for further injuries which may have resulted from the aid given. The second type of law imposes a duty upon individuals to render aid when they come upon another person who requires such aid.

    The first type of law, restricting liability for aid rendered, is more common in Anglo-American common law countries. The second type of good samaritan law, imposing a duty to aid, has been fairly common throughout Continental European countries for some time.

What is this notion I keep hearing from Casey defenders that if there’s no exact cause of death, you can’t prove murder? For Laci Peterson, the coroner couldn’t determine if she’d been stabbed, smothered or strangled because her corpse was so badly decomposed and was armless, legless and headless. Yet it was obviously a murder, not an accident or even a suicide.

Likewise for little Caylee, what difference would it make if we knew the exact cause of death, such as if she were smothered, strangled or drowned? The fact is her body was found in a trash bag, dumped in a swamp, with some duct tape still attached to the skull. Reasonable people would conclude that the cause of death was not accidental.

I do resent when Casey defenders insult my intelligence by claiming I only got my information from tabloid tv or journalism, or that I hate Casey because she’s pretty. Newsflash: I have a college education and actually took courses in logic at the university. For this case, I read trial evidence and testimony after it was released, and avoided tv commentary.

This jury epitomizes what it so wrong with our country today: a lack of critical thinking skills in our fellow citizens and a fear of making “judgements.” No wonder Obama got elected. Despite the evidence that Obama was a radical leftist who had friends and associates with Marxist beliefs, people still voted for him. If people don’t start using their brain cells, this country is in trouble.

    Weirddave in reply to MadCon. | July 8, 2011 at 8:49 am

    I resent an asshole like you classifying people who don’t agree with your mob mentality as “Casey defenders”. I haven’t heard a single person defend Casey as innocent or as the victim here. The only “defense” of Casey I’ve heard is that the damn prosecution didn’t do their job and prove the case. Nobody thinks Casey is innocent, but for some of us the rule of law that is the foundation of our country is more important than the witch hunt you want based on the purity of your outrage. Jury doesn’t do what you want? Boil the defendant in oil, she’s a witch! Is that really the type of vigilante world you want to live in?

      MadCon in reply to Weirddave. | July 8, 2011 at 12:41 pm

      Got issues there, weirddave? Calling me an asshole and part of a mob mentality because I compare jury decisions on two circumstantial cases that ended up quite differently? I’m surprised you haven’t called me a hater too. This is an opinion board and I have a right to my opinion as do you. I think the jury failed in this case, and I laid out my reasons. But to be called an asshole for it or a member of a mob? That just proves my point about lack of critical thinking skills.

        Weirddave in reply to MadCon. | July 8, 2011 at 7:43 pm

        Nope, sorry, you don’t get it. I called you an asshole for using the intentionally inflammatory and offensive classification “Casey defenders” for people who don’t agree with YOUR particular interpretation of the trial. It seems you lack the ability to deal with the facts that they bring up, so you’re resorting to personal insults. If you have one single quote from someone on this website defending the actions or the character of Casey Anthony, post it and I’ll join you in condemning the statement. Otherwise stop using an offensive and pejorative term to castigate those who disagree with you, in this case it’s nothing but an ad hominem attack.

          MadCon in reply to Weirddave. | July 8, 2011 at 11:38 pm

          Nice try, weirddave, to deflect away from YOUR ad hominem attack. Seems you must think I was referring to people at this specific site when I was speaking of people in general who, in many people’s opinion, are defending an unreasonable verdict. “Casey Defenders” is not perjorative, but you sure seem to take personal offense to it. How exactly does saying “Casey defenders” deserve the attack of “asshole?”

          Perhaps I should have written “the jury is sacred” defenders or “the system worked” defenders. Because I’m not alone in believing that the jury failed and as the jurors continue to talk openly about their decision, it becomes more obvious to many people if you bother to read other blogs.

          Then you claim that because I believe the verdict is wrong, I must want Casey boiled in oil. Absolutely ridiculous leap in logic there.

          I’m surprised that Prof. Jacobson, who moderates this board, even allowed your asshole comment to go through. Even the liberal SFgate.com would have erased your comment for lack of civility.

          Weirddave in reply to Weirddave. | July 9, 2011 at 2:44 am

          For someone who has hung his(or her) hat on bemoaning a “lack of critical thinking skills” you show some lack in that department yourself. Your own words condemn you: In your last post you claim your beef is with folks who are “defending an unreasonable verdict”. Fine. That’s open to debate, although I would offer that however unreasonable the verdict is (and I, personally, as a father, would be quite happy to boil in oil anyone who could do that to a child), the issue is the VERDICT, not Casey herself. YOU made it about Casey, characterizing those who are looking at the verdict and placing the blame for it on the prosecution as somehow defending the wretched waste of skin that is Casey Anthony. Again, nobody is defending Casey, and I defy you to present one single bit of evidence supporting your claim that those of us who don’t like the verdict, but pay fealty to the rule of law are somehow defending Casey. It’s time to put up or shut up. Can you?

          As to why Dr. Jacobson has allowed our little tête à tête to continue, I suspect that the good doctor values a good debate, and however offended you are by my calling you an asshole, he probably sees that you characterizing me as a defender of that narcissistic cum dumpster as equally offensive.

          As always, if Dr. Jacobson feels the need to step in and moderate my comments on his blog, I will of course abide by his decision. I am only a guest in his place, his is the final arbitration.

          MadCon in reply to Weirddave. | July 9, 2011 at 11:56 am

          Weirddave, how about all of the above apply, as in casey defenders, verdict defenders, and jury defenders because they are usually tied together. Definition of a “casey defender” is a person who, while believing she may be guilty, defends her from the “mob” in the court of public opinion.

          Well, you for example have just recently defended her in the court of public opinion, not as innocent, but from being chased by the witch-hunting mob who want to boil her in oil, and I am being lumped into that mob because I think the verdict stinks and now I’m called an asshole to boot. There are many “casey defenders” on other boards so I’ve noticed who feel it’s fine to insult those of us who think justice wasn’t served. Notice I didn’t call casey defenders assholes though, did I?

          I hope your beef with me is done. I noticed that you were banned from straightdope.com’s boards for picking fights and making insults there over a period of time. Now please leave me alone.

          Weirddave in reply to Weirddave. | July 9, 2011 at 2:13 pm

          Reading comprehension sure isn’t your strong suit, is it? I repeat, for the nth time, nobody is defending Casey. Nobody. You don’t even try to support this accusation, you just make it and act like you’ve proved it by making it. You wield the phrase “Casey defenders” like a club, much the same way racists of a (thankfully mostly) bygone era would brand anyone who opposed them a “N***** lover”. It’s not an accurate description, or even a coherent response, it is an attempt to dismiss someone who disagrees with you as personally without merit rather than dealing with the subject of their argument.

          Your final paragraph proves my point yet again. Rather than engaging me on topic, you went searching for anything you could find out about me personally. What does my time at the SDMB have to do with anything we’ve been discussing here? Yea, I was banned from there, after more than a decade of peaceful posting, not for picking fights and making insults, but for relentlessly calling one of the loonie lefties that infest that board on his nonsense. He opined that Israel was evil and the Palestinians innocent peaceful victims of their bloodthirsty aggression, and that he’d be safer among them than in Israel. I called him on it, pinned him down, challenged him to put his money where his mouth was and wouldn’t let him wiggle out of his ridiculous statements. I volunteered to fly with him, on my dime, to Israel, where I would walk the streets of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem with a big sign saying “Jews and Israel suck”, as long as he’d do the same through the streets of the West Bank and Gaza with a similar sign about Palestinians and Islam. For some strange reason he didn’t have the courage of his convictions to do that, and I was banned for “wishing death” on another poster (which, um, was sorta my point). None of that has anything at all to do with my posts here or with Casey, the only reason to bring it up is as yet another ad hominem attack.

          Finally, dude, grow a pair. If you’re this upset that someone called you an asshole on the internet, I suggest that you limit your online excursions to nickjr.com. Either that or, um, stop posting assholeish things. Just a thought.

          William A. Jacobson in reply to Weirddave. | July 9, 2011 at 2:22 pm

          I’m not a big fan of people calling each other “a**holes” in the comments. People can make their points without having this devolve.

          Weirddave in reply to Weirddave. | July 9, 2011 at 3:54 pm

          Your blog, your rules, of course I will comply. Sorry, professor.

I am still trying to understand Prog rage about this. I thought they applauded women who choose to murder their offspring. Perhaps calling it a 19th Trimester abortion would make it more palatable to them? I mean seriously, can ANYONE give me a real answer how this murder (Which was allegedly committed in secret so the Mom could keep her boyfriend and her party-girl lifestyle without the encumbrance of a child) is any different than having a living child cut up and suctioned out of a womb then thrown in the trash? I mean seriously, what is the real issue with Casey, a lack of foresight? If she had done it with a doctors assistance 16 months ago it would have been perfectly legal, and admirable, according to the same liberal jackholes with their panties in a wad right now. A little coherence and consistency might be in order. Liberalism truly is a mental disease.

One other question, given that OJ Simpson was successfully sued in Civil Court for the murder of Nicole Brown, doesn’t the State of Florida have standing to take Casey Anthony to civil court, convict her on the “preponderance of evidence” standard and thus confiscate any money she makes off of Kaylee’s death?

Yes, I am shocked at a person who seemly has committed the perfect crime and gets off free with virtually no consequences, but that Casey may actually profit of her death is unacceptable, however, I subscribe to the notion of don’t get mad, get even. There is no point in venting rage as though there is nothing we can do, feeling helpless when that energy can be channeled to bring justice for Kaylee.

I didn’t follow the case until the lawyers’ summations.

I was floored
1) Casey never-ever reported her child missing
2) that at least one alternate thought Casey was a “loving mother”
3) that the jury spent so little time deliberating
4) that the jury was hung up on motive
5) by the jury NOT GUILTY verdicts

And then I’ve been hearing/reading this about Casey’s “Zanny the nanny”:

“Is Zanny (xanax) the nanny the culprit in the Caylee Anthony case?”

http://citizenkim.wordpress.com/2008/08/07/is-zanny-xanax-the-nanny-the-culprit-in-the-caylee-anthony-case/

This joke is going around: ‘Casey Anthony believes that it is never to late for an abortion.’

And now I read that Casey wants another baby. As a mother of two, and a grandmother of fours, furious doesn’t begin to describe my feelings right now.

There was insufficient evidence of how the child died, let alone who might have killed her.

If people are going to form their opinions based on media speculations, or uncritically just buy into the police and prosecution version of facts without any skepticism, then we may as well just ditch the justice system altogether.

The case is not similar in the least to the OJ trial, which was a jury nullification notwithstanding the evidence.

Maybe the problem is the jury system.
Do you want to know how to get out of jury duty? There are lots of ways.
1)Say that you don’t trust the police during voir dire.
2)When filling out your jury form, don’t give your race, instead check ‘other’ and write in ‘human’.
3) Say that you are predisposed to believe black people.
4)Say that you think that the police are racist.

5)If you don’t mind looking bad, say that you hate minorities, say that you have been mugged or robbed, or say that you don’t like white people.

I’ve been to jury duty numerous times. What I positively hate is when some public employee gets up and gives a lecture about how important jury duty is and blah, blah, civic duty, blah, blah….all the while he’s a public employee who doesn’t work nights, weekends or holidays, and he is getting paid to be there, while I am not only missing pay for that day, as a self employed person, won’t get paid at all, or at least for the initial five days. So basically, if I serve on a jury I lose a weeks pay.

What makes it even worse is that they don’t have a decent food service in the court house.

Juba Doobai! | July 8, 2011 at 9:10 am

It is not enough to have evidence of a crime. The prosecutor must be able to connect the evidence to the defendant. Since CA’s lived at home, her car was accessible to others in the home. Therefore, anyone else apart from her could have put the body in the car resulting in the child’s hair being there. Also, since it was her car, it is logical that the child’s hair would be found in places other than the inside of the car, such as the trunk, and it would be carried there just by moving something. The prosecutor would then have to prove that the hair found in the trunk was there post- rather than pre-mortem.

One last thing as to your wife, Wm: remind her that she would want her children, should any of them find themselves in a trial situation, to be subject to the same trial process where the verdict is decided by the rules of evidence and not the emotions of the jurors.

BTW, even if the prosecutor in Laci Peterson’s case could not establish the cause of death, that her body was dismembered was sufficient proof of murder. One could argue that LP’s body being found whole the defense could make a case for drowning. Dismemberment itself would cause death.

    MadCon in reply to Juba Doobai!. | July 8, 2011 at 1:03 pm

    It was established by a prosecution witness that the hair in the trunk was post-mortem based on how hair decomposes after death. Of course the defense tried to poke holes in that science, which is their job.

    With Laci Peterson, her body was dismembered due to being in water for awhile and, as prosecution theorized, being weighed down with rope and cement anchors.

    I’m basing my opinion of guilty on evidence, not emotion. I didn’t watch the televised trial or listen to talking heads. I just read the factual accounts of evidence and testimony that were at the trial. The jury had alot of circumstantial evidence, more than in the Scott Peterson case. They only deliberated for 11 hours. They didn’t even ask to review any evidence or testimony. Why not just make it a hung jury and have it retried?

    Maybe we have the best system in the world. But this time it failed.

    Juba Doobai! in reply to Juba Doobai!. | July 8, 2011 at 8:34 pm

    Dismemberment definitely points to murder and, by evidence, to her husband as the perpetrator.

I’m a mom, and I agree that I think the prosecution dropped the ball. They needed more evidence. They succeeded in showing that Anthony was an unfit mother, and probably mentally disturbed, but it looks like they failed to provide a clear chain of events showing that Anthony killed her daughter and they did not have hard evidence.
Maybe they should have collected more evidence before charging her. Maybe they should have considered the possibility that she was lying while she was lying and used forensic then to find the body sooner. In any case they blew it.
What ticks me off is that I suspect if Anthony had been a man the prosecution would never have gone to court with such flimsy evidence.

For all of those of you who claim that Casey Anthony could not have been found guilty because a) there was no cause of death b) no murder weapon and c) no witnesses, it seems you have to be reminded that Scott Peterson currently sits on death row based on LESS circumstantial evidence than there was in the Casey Anthony trial.

Casey Anthony got away with murder and now will go on to reap millions of $$ that will allow her the fame and La Bella Vita that she so desires. If you think she will ever admit to killing her child, you are delusional and I suggest you research Borderline Personality Disorder.

DINORightMarie | July 8, 2011 at 10:03 am

@Johan – I believe Dr. Peter Singer of Princeton U would agree with you.

@dscott – I agree 100%. I think you might have a good argument, if allowed in Florida. Good thing to ponder, explore.

The law is clear in the US. For 1st degree murder conviction, the accused is innocent until proven guilty. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of that crime. The same standard is to be used in all cases, for all accused – equally – as no one is above the law; and all are equal under the rule of law when accused of a crime.

Do injustices happen? Of course. No one, no group of people, is perfect. Will the family, the accused, the lawyers, the jurors try to get rich off this case? You bet. They are human, and that is the morality of today’s culture. Sick, twisted. Just watch Dexter, you’ll see what I mean.

All that said, NO ONE has said that mother, Casey Anthony, is INNOCENT. I do believe @dscott has a good point, and that, just like OJ, there might be a real possibility that Casey Anthony will be made to pay in civil court. Given the parasites who are already offering her mega-buck deals to profit off the death of her daughter, I would say the state of Florida should act on this quickly, if such is applicable in their state.

As noted by @Juba Doobai!, I would want my child to be treated as innocent until proven guilty, and to have a defense team hold the prosecution, judge, and jury to the rule of law.

People are set up; people commit crimes and try to avoid being caught by pointing everything to others, usually the obvious suspect. People over time have been wrongly convicted of crimes, often because the person who actually committed the crime did a great job of ensuring all the evidence pointed at someone else – and the prosecution did a great job of presenting the case so that there was no reasonable doubt. And, often, defense lawyers dropped the ball.

Injustices happen. Both ways. This is not a perfect world; people are always going to make mistakes. But our judicial system, courts and laws, are the best and most fair in all the world. In all of history, no court system has ever been set up and functioned as well, as fairly, as just as ours.

I believe the truly guilty will eventually be found out – if not in this world, then at the judgment (yes, I’m a Christian and I believe in judgment after death).

There is no rest for the wicked. No peace.

    Juba Doobai! in reply to DINORightMarie. | July 8, 2011 at 8:36 pm

    That’s right. We can’t swear to CA’s innocence, but we can assert that, according to the law, she’s not guilty. We don’t have to like it. We just have to assent to the verdict on fear of becoming a nation of rule of men rather than rule of law.

I viewed Casey Anthony as the latest “no news marker” story – when it’s the lead story, there’s no news, so I can turn off the radio or TV. If it’s the second story, the first story was the only thing worth watching, etc. As soon as I heard the name I’d switch off the news, so I ignored the story, pretty much. OJ, Michael Jackson, and Britney Spears variously served that purpose in the past.

Well, no news we’re actually going to hear before they’re utterly forced to… it’s not real until it’s on the news!

Well, no, you’re not right about the furious reaction from this particular mommy-type. In fact, the furious reaction from guys and gals on Facebook inspired me to post about how they shouldn’t second guess the jury. Insty linked and what a lively discussion folks had.

Somebody even called me a reptile, LOL.

I think it’s more a division between those that have experience with the criminal law process and those who don’t. Even if your experience is limited to being on a jury once, it makes you pause before you rail against the jury or the system.

Those who have only followed these trials thru TV/Nancy Grace, on the other hand, tend to have the furious reaction.

My two cents are purely anecdotal as well, of course.

Cheers!

@Linda, I’ve served on a criminal jury, and can’t believe the jury couldn’t find anything worse than lying to convict on. I really wonder if the “rape/molestation victim” claim got to some of the women, while some of the men were maybe hoping to score with Casey.

Well, at least Caylee’s back with a loving Heavenly Father and away from a narcissistic sociopath of a mother.

Juba Doobai! | July 8, 2011 at 8:26 pm

@Seanette, and you didn’t follow the rules of evidence, I gather, finding guilt because you thought the person should be found guilty, making stuff up to convict?

I like the Constitution’s provision for trials, but you scare me.

    Seanette in reply to Juba Doobai!. | July 9, 2011 at 12:46 pm

    Would you have acquitted someone who confessed to the charges on the witness stand, just because you felt sorry for him or something? Twelve assorted citizens, including me, thought it was a bit sad that a 19-year-old was picking up two felony strikes at once, but the facts we were given, including the defendant’s confession, could not support any other verdict.

    Sorry that operating on facts and logic scares you so much.

I live here in Orlando, just a 25 minute drive from the Anthony home.

The term “mob rule” has surfaced all over the blogosphere, how it’s a good thing we have these procedures in place to avoid it at all costs. And I don’t disagree.

And yet, I have to chuckle a bit when folks think that we the mob are mindlessly out for Casey’s head. Allow me to talk about our little “mob” here.

When the local media first announced that a little girl named Caylee Anthony was missing, this so-called mob rose to the occasion. We endured mosquitoes, heat, humidity, and the general discomfort that comes with dropping everything to physically search for a missing child. We did what we could to assist law enforcement in their search for Caylee.

We offered moral support to the Anthony’s, set up memorials, held vigils, even prayed for the safe return of Caylee. Mind you, this was before Nancy Grace & the Gang became involved.

My husband even ran into George Anthony in an auto parts store during that time. He was instantly recognizable since he was wearing a “MISSING: CAYLEE ANTHONY” t-shirt.

When it became apparent that Casey had a knack for taking advantage of the kindness and generosity of, first, her family, and then of the community at large, then we the mob rightfully questioned what the heck was going on here. Just who did Casey Anthony think we were?

It wasn’t like the community in Orlando wakes up in the morning wondering who’s the next target for a public lynching.

She played us for fools. At the most basic level, we simply wanted to know the truth. That’s all. And Casey has been evading it ever since.

So, yes, professor, furious sounds about right. And I have witnessed the same reaction from several males here. It’s not a gender-exclusive emotion with regard to this case. Not in these parts, anyways.

nerkbuckeye | July 9, 2011 at 4:49 pm

I think we can all agree that people have been getting away with capital crimes since civilization began (and A LOT before then). At the same time, innocent people have been put to death and punished for crimes they did not commit. The question is, what is the right balance? The justice system we have leans towards guilty people going free and as difficult as that is sometimes to accept– the alternative is a system where those in power (judges, prosecutors, media, etc.) can easily gin up a case against someone just to “get justice”.

I don’t know how many times I have heard someone on television say that while this bad mother goes free there is no justice for the dead child– Excuse me, are we interested in justice? Or are we just interested in SOMEBODY paying for the crime?

Casey Anthony may very well have caused the death of Caley– but there is a reason why we are judged by our peers, not Nancy Grace and Bill O’Reilly.

. . .
I’ve noticed something in the reactions, admittedly anecdotal. The reaction from mothers seems to be at a different level than the rest of us.

Am I right about that?

Yes. I noticed it most explicitly in the reaction of a former work acquaintance, a person who I may run into only a few times in any given year. We’ll always say hello and how have you been . . . that sort of thing. I happened to run into her only a day or so after the verdict.

I think she is a mother of two teenage children, and she broached the topic with me, quite unsolicited. She was absolutely livid that a mother could do that to a child. And she even expressed the view that eventually someone, perhaps someone with a terminal illness, or someone otherwise having nothing to lose, would step forward and get her. It was an “avenging angel” theory.

She said she thought it would happen to Anthony in the context of her time in jail, which was before it became clear that Casey would be out in a matter of a few days.

In other words, she was presuming that another inmate would go after her. That potential has been a problem in the past with those who have been jailed for child molestation or killing a child — but she seemed to believe that a woman inmate would wreak revenge on her.

From a few stories I’ve seen, I think it’s pretty clear that Florida officials have some sense that she is at risk on some level, perhaps due to the number and intensity of threats that have been made against her.

I was actually quite nonplussed by this person’s reaction that she expressed to me.

My own feeling had been more along the lines of bewilderment over the overwhelming public fascination with the case. I guess I just didn’t get the level of fascination with the case. But apparently for those who were really caught up in the unfolding drama, there seems to be a subset of folks, including women, who are really angry at the outcome, and specifically angry at Casey Anthony.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend