print“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.
I agree 100%! The jury was made up of idiots. But we shouldn’t be surprised, after all, this is the USA. Left wing idiot Nancy Grace hyped this story for the last three years and the people bought in. The media will focus on stories like this and not inform the American people of what the President and Congress are doing to this country. I hope Casey gets hit by a bus very soon. Now that would be justice!
There is actually a very plausible case bi William C. Dear that O.J. didn’t commit the murders of his ex-wife and her lover. Have you heard about his investigation?
I agree with you, Ilana, that she was guilty, but am unsure that the evidence presented rose to the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard. The system is designed to let some guilty walk in order that few innocents walk the plank. That innocents are still railroaded through the massive resources of the state is why I can not support state execution. “Dream-teamed” OJ walks and “looks for the real killer”, while “Juan Guttierez Gonzalez” is accused of capping the 7-11 clerk, draws a public defender, and gets the needle. At least life in lockup preserves the possibility to correct a grievously incorrect sentence.
No longer any doubt about the dumbing down of the folks; these 12 folks on the jury remove all disbelief. As ‘Tater says, there is no cure for stupid.
My wife likes television. I have by osmosis saw just about all of the Perry Mason, Mattlock, and McBride series. In each, the defendant is found not guilty by reason that the defense proves someone else guilty. The other 99 television law programs find the defendant ‘not guilty because of social injustice or some other rot.’ It’s because the NRA defends guns that someone made a different decision than the Liberal one. It was because welfare reform cut off the freebies, or we didn’t build enough basketball courts or something else the Republicans did that is the ‘real fault.’ In other words, juries are being home schooled to overlook the facts in favor of the defendant becoming the victim. The real victim is rarely even mentioned.
I wonder how the jury dealt with the fact that the mother did not report her child missing for a month, if not because she already knew where she was.
Was I the only one who viewed half the defense as a self-indicting attempt to abrogate responsibility in the event of a guilty verdict?
I further suspect the primary reason for the ‘Not guilty’ verdict was an overwhelming aversion to send the mother to the electric chair without even knowing exactly how the child died.
Finally, am I to understand that when someone reports a dead body, the appropriate response is to send one lone idiot to search the entire marsh, and then fire him when he can’t find it?
What a mess.
Here is this alternate juror statement: “I agree with their verdict wholeheartedly,” said alternate juror Russell Huekler, who sat through the trial but did not participate in the jury’s deliberations.
“The prosecution did not prove their case,” he said. “The big question that was not answered: How did Caylee die?”
In Huekler’s “standard”, the prosecution does not only have to prove THAT Casey murdered her baby but they must prove exactly HOW and WHEN it was done!!! Utterly absurd!!! So if Captain Schmidt and 20 Gestapo were seen marching 200 Jews off to a field and they are found 10 years later in a pit burned and decayed with bullet fragments – NO ONE CAN BE CONVICTED since we don’t know who fired which bullet when into which victim as well as the precise time order of each victim’s death?? That is monstrous stupidity disguised as an argument.
It appears that not only should the Anthony family have been sterilized a long time ago (by the way, did the baby have a “father”?) but probably most of the jurors should be sterilized to prevent them from further polluting the gene pool. And Florida is a state that worries about gay adoption?!!
Something seems missing in my life…I wonder what it is. Oh, yeah, my child! I must have misplaced her a month ago! I freak out when I lose my keys & wallet and I do that on a fairly regular basis. Just sayin’…
Naturally, Ann C has weighed in (very sure of herself considering she has no kids herself) and naturally it is all the fault of “liberals”:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter070711.php3
Nothing profound happened here. If you have enough money to hire a competent lawyer, or commit an atrocity sufficiently fragrant to attract one (in this case)then you will likely get away with it; in fact, if you are convicted of anything in our crime-lobby legal system, you should probably sue your lawyer. Baez was, in fact, an excellent lawyer: he went to law school, learned how to jury rig during the juror selection process, and simply applied his knowledge. This case was decided before a shred of evidence was even offered. One ringer = mistrial; 12 = acquittal. Frankly, I’m impressed. If ever I off someone and am caught, I will certainly contact this proven expert in jury rigging.