So, yesterday I posted a note on my Face Book page about the Casey Anthony thing. Turns out it is a hotter topic than I thought (and I thought it was extremely hot). Today, on the KOMO news website, there was a story about the sentence Casey Anthony received for lying to investigators. The story itself was a bunch of the usual filler and post trial reporting. It was the comments afterward that really had me interested. There were a lot of people who seemed to be after the jury and angry at the outcome. Seems they wanted a conviction based on purely circumstantial evidence. The problem is, circumstantial evidence doesn't meet the criteria for a capitol murder case. It may for manslaughter or maybe even second degree murder but not murder one with capitol punishment in the mix. The fact is that hard evidence is needed linking the murder to the killer with premeditation in the mix. As I said on face book, the Prosecution failed on all these accounts.
Here are the facts:
1. Caylee disappeared and 31 days later her mother reported it. Yes, she lied and told tall tales, but this only points to bad parenting and irresponsibility, not murder.
2. Caylee's body was found with duct tape on her mouth. Once again, could mean any number of things.
3. An unsubstantiated report of the smell of "human decay" by a impound lot worker was reported, when the car was picked up (note that it was not reported to the police but the grandparents upon pick up). Further the technique used to determine the odor came from a human body could not be reproduced with actual corpses, thus invalidating it.
4. The tape on Caylee's body was "consistent" with tape at the Anthony residence. Note here that it consistent does not mean matches. A chrome bumper is consistent with a Studebaker, but could also match a corvette. Thus, the tape could have come from a neighbor, a stranger, or you.
5. No DNA/fingerprint evidence linked the tape on Caylee to Casey or Caylee to the car. Now you have to stretch and assume that she was smart enough to clean her car of all evidence (hair, fibers etc.) of Caylee, yet still have left enough remains for their to be an odor.
6. The cause of death was asphyxiation, but what asphyxiated her could not be determined. It could have been drowning, the tape, a pillow, a hand, or even a dog sitting on her face. There was nothing to point at what actually killed her. Once again, how can it be murder if you can't even prove the victim was murdered?
Given the above facts, all you are left with is the witness statements which only prove that Casey is an unfit mother. Especially since the above facts fit both the prosecutions story of murder and the testimony of Casey that it was a cover up of an accidental drowning. Since the jury is required to err on the side of the defense and there was no testimony or evidence providing a direct link to murder or otherwise, not guilty was the only possible verdict in this case. Was Casey guilty of something related to her daughters death? I believe so. Does it meet the required evidential rules for capitol one murder? Not even close. Over and over I hear people shouting that cases have been won on circumstantial evidence. The fact is that every capitol case that has been won on circumstantial evidence has been overturned on appeal. Yes, some circumstantial evidence cases stand, but not when it comes to capitol cases.
I have really disliked writing these things the last few days as they go against the grain and make seem as though I am standing up for this horrible mother (I can't think of any other way to put it). I am not, I am standing up for the jury and our justice system. I am glad the system worked, I just feel the prosecutor erred in going for capitol murder with such poor evidence. We as a nation tout our justice system and the fact that we are innocent until proven guilty, yet we are happy to jump in head first into very shallow water based on what the media said. We as a nation had her convicted long before it went to trial. I am surprised they were able to seat a jury based on that alone. How many of you could honestly say that you could have sat on that jury and provided unbiased opinions on just the evidence? How many of you could have weighed equally the defense and the prosecution based on the evidence given? The only reason I think I could have is because I didn't follow the story until the verdict was announced and my face book news feed blew up with anger at it. Once my news feed blew up I researched the facts and found that I had no choice but to support the jury. My heart goes out to them as they had a horrible job to do and now they are being threatened because of it.
As for the prosecutor in this, I think he should be fired. He allowed himself to overstep the evidence and let the media guide him to go for the big one when the only thing he had was the smaller one. Thus he allowed Casey to walk with 4 years instead of life. Some of you are saying that the defense muddied the water like in the OJ trial, the fact is the defense didn't have to because the prosecution never had a case for murder one in the first place. As sad as it is that is the truth.
I am sorry if this has ruined your day or you think this is a bad article. I didn't mean to upset you, I just wanted to make you think about what I saw in all this. I can't determine which is a greater crime, overstepping the evidence and letting someone like this walk free, or blaming the jury for doing what they had to in accordance with the law. Thank you for reading this and bearing with my rant. I just had to say it. Have a great day (provided I haven't ruined it for you). God bless.
No comments:
Post a Comment