“If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit” was the jingle that captured the legal argument that undergirded the OJ Simpson case, one of the most notorious miscarriages of justice in the annals of American justice. Here’s the adaptation for the Casey Anthony case: “If it wasn’t uploaded on YouTube you must acquit.”

It took 12 idiots 11 hours to decide to exonerate the (ALLEGEDLY) filicidal Casey Anthony, who was found “not guilty of first-degree murder and the other most serious charges against her in the 2008 death of her 2-year-old daughter,” Caylee Marie Anthony. (CNN)

The evidence was overwhelming, if circumstantial (as in most murder cases). The prosecution presented the more intelligent, rational sequence of events, where motive, opportunity, and evidence all stacked-up against the sociopathic Casey Anthony.

Caylee was last seen on “June 16, 2008, but was not reported missing until July 15, 2008,” and then only by the child’s grandmother, Cindy Anthony, who “tracked her daughter [the accused] down and demanded answers regarding Caylee’s whereabouts.” Casey then led law enforcement officers on a wild-goose chase, during which this wicked young woman implicated another, non-existent, alleged child minder in an abduction.

All the while Casey Anthony was partying like there was no tomorrow.

The defense team was headed by a not-very bright Jose Baez, who threw everything but the kitchen sink at the 12 idiots who decided Casey Anthony’s fate. Wits were well-matched. From sexual abuse by George Anthony (Casey’s father), to the aforementioned grandpa having helped dispose of his drowned granddaughter body—the 12 bought it.

After all, we all know, from watching, CSI, that if a crime doesn’t happen as depicted in such series—where ample samples of DNA and incriminating footage always materialize —you must acquit.

This is the Age of the Idiot. The average individual seldom reads; he knows only what he sees. If he can’t picture something, he certainly cannot think about it in the abstract.

I expect that grappling with circumstantial evidence, which demands some level of abstraction in thinking, will become harder and harder for juries.

As far as living in ignominy goes: Casey Anthony’s jurors have made OJ’s jurors a little less lonely.

UPDATED I: “A reasonable doubt was turned into a reason to doubt”: this is how a CNN analyst put it very succinctly. It is a result, to an extent, of the commercialization of the adversary legal system.

UPDATE II: Judging from the thread on my Facebook Wall, we are doomed.

UPDATE III: Bill, it seems to me that you are mixing your political theories with the facts of the case. You seem to be following a formula that’s designed to please the requirements of a political philosophy, and not to serve justice. The defense always offers a competing theory of the events. And so it should. If the facts contradict this theory, then it is up to the jury to go where the evidence leads, and not where the world of possibilities lies. Divorced from reality is what this decision was.

I do think, though, that a circumstantial case—also what most murder cases are, apparently—should not carry the death penalty. DNA evidence should be required in order to mete capital punishment.

UPDATE IV (July 6): Incredulous on FACEBOOK. G-d help me: an ex-juror thinks that, coupled with the body, the possibility of a mother giving her kid (whose body turned up in a garbage bag) whiffs of chloroform doesn’t go toward reasonable proof of serious malice, in a court of law. This is the first time I’ve researched Chloroform in my LIFE, and I’m a mom. Thing is: I’m honest; people on this thread are engaged in mythical thinking. I know, as a mother, how effing awful a two-year-old can be, and my own daughter was a blessing—a sweet child by comparison to most American kids. As sweet as she was, she could drive me to distraction, and I was an evolved, married, non-partying mom …

UPDATE V: Imported from Facebook:

I’ve never watched Nancy Grace in my life. Now a lot of pundits, without explaining what irked them about the evidence implicating the only plausible suspect in the violent death her of daughter, are using this verdict to show-off their commitment to the Constitution. What a crock. Which relevant sections in this document would a conviction have violated? “The CSI Effect” captures this trial.

I do agree with the issue of overreach: the prosecution should have gone with a lesser charge and not sought death. “We’ll never know who killed Calley,” says Sean Hannity. Come again? I hope he gets that interview he’s bookers are probably seeking as I write. So is anyone here going to detail one-by-one the bits of evidence presented which they did not find credible? Is there perhaps a lead that was not followed? Another suspect? A violent boyfriend who was crazy about the narcissistic creep called Casey, and just had to have her for himself?

UPDATE VI (July 7): Some of the comments to this blog continue in this vain: “Rah-rah, revolution man. I’m so cool. I’m anti-government, and anti-authoritarianism. Therefore, the jury is cool. And anyone who goes against the state, even if the state presented the facts, is cool.”

As the libertarian who coined the verb to Nifong, and who was perhaps the only libertarian to defend Michael Vick based on propertarian principles, and one of the few to defend Michael Jackson—readers with attitude don’t impress me much. Facts sway me, not cool factor.