July 8, 2011
Casey Anthony's Verdict - Connecting Dots and Reasonable Doubt
Several days ago tens of millions of people were glued to their television sets or computer monitors watching Casey Anthony's reaction as her verdict being was read aloud by the clerk in the courtroom. I was one of them. After hearing the verdict for the first three counts, I knew the twelve jurors that decided Casey's fate had taken their eye off the ball.
Hundreds, no actually, thousands of hours of debate have happened about this salacious trial. All too often I feel that people forget about the real victim. That was poor Caylee. Just about everyone I've talked to about this trial is outraged at the verdict.
How could the jury not connect the dots? How could the jury not get beyond a reasonable doubt?
Let's look at the evidence.
First we've got a bag of bones. How does a body get in a plastic bag and have duct tape around it to close it off? If you're in the bag, you can't tape it closed.
Casey Anthony has a history of lying. She was the last person to see little Caylee alive.
The skull had pieces of duct tape across the mouth and nose. We, the public, will probably never be able to see the crime scene photos, but know that it's true. The lead prosecutor said that in an interview last night on Fox News. The photos we saw were digitally altered out of respect for poor Caylee. That's how gruesome the death was.
The disappearance of Caylee was not reported for 31 days. Do you know a parent that would do that? Can you explain that fact to me? Can you give me other examples of parents who have waited days and days to report a missing child?
The coroners could not rule an exact cause of death. I got that. The decomposition of poor Caylee's body was so complete, there was no flesh left to prove the duct tape was on her actual mouth and nose. I'm with you on that.
But why would strips of tape be put on the face of a dead child that allegedly drowned? Can you explain that to me? I sure can explain to you why duct tape would be put over the mouth and nose of a child.
Stay focused. Review the facts again.
We've got a dead child - one that's been murdered. It's a horrifying homicide, not an accidental death. Kids that die in swimming pool drownings don't have tape on their faces and end up inside plastic bags in a murky swamp blocks from where they live.
Kids that drown end up on those stainless-steel tables in the morgue hours after the body's been discovered in the pool. The coroner's van takes the body there after the 911 call. You're with me on that, right? I want to make sure you and I agree on what happens when a child drowns in a pool. The coroner puts the body in a bag, but then on that table for the autopsy. Right?
Put yourself in that jury room and stare at those facts. Forget about anything else about Casey's care-free lifestyle during those 31 days. Who cares about that. Who cares about the tattoo. Who cares about the lies of her parents on the witness stand.
Keep your eye on the target. Think. You're a juror. You've got a defenseless child that's a victim of a grim murder. Your goal is to connect the dots in a case and punish the person that peeled the duct tape from that roll. Your job is to get beyond reasonable doubt.
Remember, we've got a dead child.
Now, let me help you get there. Oh how I wish I was in that jury room.
Let's go over some other facts.
Less than ten years ago another person was reported missing from her home. This person was eight months pregnant.
This person's husband, and the father of the child, was the last person to see her alive.
Five months after being reported missing, the body of a small child washed ashore followed by a torso that was later identified as it's mother. The torso was missing the hands, feet and head.
DNA testing conclusively identified the body, but the cause of death was not determined. That's very important to know.
There was all sorts of other evidence, but you can go over that on your own time.
Oh, you need to know something else. The husband of the torso, his name is Scott Peterson. He's on Death Row in San Quentin prison in California awaiting execution.
Where are all the blog posts and articles claiming that an innocent person has been convicted of this horrendous crime of murdering a pregnant mom and then cutting off her head, feet and hands and then dumping her in a bay? If you've got links to them, by all means put them down below in the comments.
Okay, let's get back to work.
So what was your question about beyond a reasonable doubt? Tell me again where you've got difficulty with that concept?
The jurors in the Scott Peterson trial had no issues with it.
Casey Anthony, as well as OJ Simpson and a handful of others are why we have a phrase in the English language. You know it. I'm sure it's passed across your lips.
Yes indeed, Casey Anthony got away with murder because her jury didn't have the strength, the courage, the guts, to do what the jurors did in the Scott Peterson trial as well as many others where there was a clear path beyond a reasonable doubt.
Posted by Tim Carter at July 8, 2011 7:24 AM
For shame Tim. For a body so deposed to keeping the constitution and all the parts thereof alive and well, how dare you try to second guess the very thing that keeps tyrants at bay, at least if they are educated enough to know they are the judge of the facts and the facts have to be proven.
I would a thousand times rather a hundred guilty go free than one innocent go to jail. Do you not believe justice will be served in the end, no matter how long that may be from now?
True, a terrible thing happened to Caylee but why compound the problem. I for one do not know if Casey did or did not do it. But I think given the same set of circumstances the jury I too would have voted not guilty. and not guilty does not mean innocent.
Posted by: Justin at July 17, 2011 9:29 AMTim, Millions are with you on this one. I keep asking myself if jurors see a difference between a "reasonable doubt" and ANY doubt. If they asked themselves if it were possible they had the wrong person, I think they would have said no.
Posted by: Linda B. at July 17, 2011 10:37 AMTim, Millions are with you on this one. I keep asking myself if jurors see a difference between a "reasonable doubt" and ANY doubt. If they asked themselves if it were possible they had the wrong person, I think they would have said no.
Posted by: Linda B. at July 17, 2011 10:38 AMLet's not let the defense attorneys get off easy! They are supposed to make sure she gets a fair trail. Not muddy the waters to fool the jurors!
Posted by: RICHARD at July 17, 2011 11:01 AM"Can you give me other examples of parents who have waited days and days to report a missing child?"
I'm sure there are plenty of others, but I believe you were still living in Cincinnati in July/August 2006. That's when the parents of young Marcus Feisel locked him in a closet and went away for the weekend. He died while they were gone. They took the body to a remote area and burned it, then reported him missing a couple of days later. Maybe you remember the intense manhunt, and a "desperate" mother's plea for help. For more info, google Marcus Feisel
Posted by: Dan Fluegeman at July 17, 2011 11:07 AM"Can you give me other examples of parents who have waited days and days to report a missing child?"
I'm sure there are plenty of others, but I believe you were still living in Cincinnati in July/August 2006. That's when the parents of young Marcus Feisel locked him in a closet and went away for the weekend. He died while they were gone. They took the body to a remote area and burned it, then reported him missing a couple of days later. Maybe you remember the intense manhunt, and a "desperate" mother's plea for help. For more info, google Marcus Feisel
COMMENT BY Tim Carter:
Dan, I'm well aware of that horrible case. Those two people in that case were found GUILTY by their jury. I remember them serving jail time.
Posted by: Dan Fluegeman at July 17, 2011 11:07 AMTim: Only 2 coments -
(1) The prosecution probably over-reached in going for death, instead of life imprisonment-with no chance of parole.
(2) This jury was exhibiting an increasingly common phenomenon known as "CSI Syndrome." They wanted ABSOLUTELY irrefutable 'scientific' evidence to relieve them of the burden of making judgemental decisions. The phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt" had no meaning for them.
Tim: Only 2 coments -
(1) The prosecution probably over-reached in going for death, instead of life imprisonment-with no chance of parole.
(2) This jury was exhibiting an increasingly common phenomenon known as "CSI Syndrome." They wanted ABSOLUTELY irrefutable 'scientific' evidence to relieve them of the burden of making judgemental decisions. The phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt" had no meaning for them.
Quite awhile ago I thought Casey Anthony was toast. Seemed so simple, Then in the last month of the trial the news of the proceedings was everywhere. This jury can not be compared with OJ. That jury's verdict was pure racist, The Anthony jury was way above average in trying to decide the right verdict. The post conduct of Casey doesn't prove anything other than a very weak motive. The jury believed that no one showed she was a bad mother. I would like to know about the lead defense attorney on whether he would try and win a case even if he believed the defendant was guilty. Those kind of lawyers need to be disbarred. The jury did not trust George the father. The defense said that Caylee died by drowning and George and Casey tried to cover it up. Let's face it Casey didn't need to murder her child because she liked to party. Her mother would have raised her daughter. Tim you are wrong being against the Jury verdict. You will see later much more on what happened here. Casey can now speak freely and I don't think you will see a book explaining how she murdered Caylee but you might see something on the coverup. This is such a high emotionally charged verdict that the truth will come out. All the players are live except Caylee.
Maynard
Posted by: Maynard Engeland at July 17, 2011 9:17 PMQuite awhile ago I thought Casey Anthony was toast. Seemed so simple, Then in the last month of the trial the news of the proceedings was everywhere. This jury can not be compared with OJ. That jury's verdict was pure racist, The Anthony jury was way above average in trying to decide the right verdict. The post conduct of Casey doesn't prove anything other than a very weak motive. The jury believed that no one showed she was a bad mother. I would like to know about the lead defense attorney on whether he would try and win a case even if he believed the defendant was guilty. Those kind of lawyers need to be disbarred. The jury did not trust George the father. The defense said that Caylee died by drowning and George and Casey tried to cover it up. Let's face it Casey didn't need to murder her child because she liked to party. Her mother would have raised her daughter. Tim you are wrong being against the Jury verdict. You will see later much more on what happened here. Casey can now speak freely and I don't think you will see a book explaining how she murdered Caylee but you might see something on the coverup. This is such a high emotionally charged verdict that the truth will come out. All the players are live except Caylee.
Maynard
Posted by: Maynard Engeland at July 17, 2011 9:18 PMI still can't believe that verdict. As for the Marcus Fiesel case; the convicted murderers were his foster parents(not to cast any negative light on the foster parent system, the vast majority are blessings to so many children). It is such a travesty of justice for the innocent children to suffer in such horrifying ways, and the guilty go free. Numbers 32:23 says ... be sure your sin will find you out. It may appear that killers are getting away with their crimes, but only in this life. Thanks for all of your efforts to keep people informed, Tim. It is appreciated.
Posted by: Wanda at July 18, 2011 9:10 AMI cry for Caylee.
It's the sensational cases that get all the media attention. And what makes them sensational? Media attention. A way to increase the ratings which generate dollars.
What if this happened with a small Midwest family with, let's say, a $30,000 dollar a year income.
I refuse to comment about that abortion of a trial.
I cry for Caylee.
Tim, as much as the verdict seems so horribly wrong, keep in mind that our justice system is based on innocent until PROVEN guilty. I live in Central Florida, so we saw/heard/read about the case far more than the rest of the country (whether we wanted to or not). But having served on juries before, realize that they only see and hear certain portions of the case. Issues are discussed in the court room while they are not present, and they are not bombarded by the circus that the media puts on for our sick entertainment. Also, the jurors are given a very narrow, strict, written, legal description of what they may and may not consider in the case. Knowing the truth and proving it happened are unfortunately not the same thing. Our system is based on proof, and the monster lucked into a situation where we err on the side of caution. Since there will be no justice for Caylee, the best the rest of us can do is boycott the attempts that will come to cash in on this horrible travesty. Because I so enjoy and use your column, this is the one time I've made an effort to follow anything about her. It is a conscious effort to change the channel, turn the page, or skip to the next story any time she is mentioned (no small effort in this part of the country). We can't change anything about this. The best people could do is make sure that the child is not forgotten, but her mother is.
Posted by: Tena at August 4, 2011 12:24 PM