Everyone knew Casey Anthony killed her daughter. They never once criticized the prosecutors. Defense lawyer Jose Baez was a punching bag for his colleagues, his "brothers of the bar" in Orlando, and the public who enjoyed trashing him hourly - and with 3 years experience, was merely comedic relief for "legal experts" on cable news shows whose last murder trial was, well, let's move on.
I don't know what happened to 2-year old Caylee Anthony. Neither do you.
Neither do you.
But according to you, the case was solid. Casey was a lying slut, she lied to the cops, a few people opined on whether her trunk had a dead body in it, and well, a child was dead, so there we have it. The fact that there was no murder weapon, no cause of death, no witnesses, and a bunch of other "no," didn't matter. Cable news and social media addicts had no doubt, and all that was left was 12 people to agree with the majority of twitter, Facebook, and the zombie audience of Nancy Grace.
And like all of our best laid plans, it just didn't work out.
The jury of 12 unanimously rejected that the state proved Casey Anthony killed her daughter.
CNN calls this a "stunning" conclusion. Why?
Because the public knew she was guilty.
People are "disgusted," "sick," shocked that their demands that "the verdict better be guilty" were not met. Even lawyers, officers of the court, are showing disrespect for the system for which they are a part.
According to those not on the jury, if they were on the jury, the vote would have been 11-1, apparently.
This same jury that would have been applauded upon the return of a guilty verdict, is now a "bunch of uneducated" "morons" who "couldn't get it right."
The media is almost speechless. Almost, because the legal commentators are now stepping all over themselves to backtrack on their disgraceful commentary during the case and try to claim they are oh-so-pleased that the Constitution worked today. The media is on the verge of tears that the jury won't speak to them. I wonder which reporter is falling over which reporter to get Jose Baez' interview now?
I hope someone will compile all the comments of the media throughout the case so that we can all watch the summary, and make it a required lesson in every journalism school in America.
For the media now doing the typical questioning of their behavior during the trial, save it. You made your bed, you lost your bet that there would be a death sentence, and questioning yourself is the definition of hypocrisy.
As for the public's "disgust," and whiny disastrous attempts at complete sentences on social media - I can't help you understand the system of American justice. You don't care. You want what you want, damn the Constitution and jury instructions. All I can say about you is that I will argue for your right to act like complete morons and I will argue for a criminal defendant's right to a fair trial, which includes the obligation of the state to prove each and every element of the charge(s) beyond and to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt.
The embarrassment of the Casey Anthony verdict is not the verdict, it's everything surrounding it.
Non-anonymous comments welcome.
Brian Tannebaum is a criminal defense lawyer in Miami, Florida practicing in state and federal court, and the author of The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer.
Post to Twitter
Posts
I was upset earlier. Yet after reading your blog, I feel much better. I now have the clarity that I didn't before. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteOh my! Look who's gloating now.
ReplyDeleteVery well put. It is refreshing to see someone maintaining an informed perspective about the verdict and rightfully criticizing the naive, lynch mob fervor of the public caused by the media's shameless coverage of the trial.
ReplyDeleteAlways appreciate your curt honesty. Our justice system is based on the idea that you can not convict someone if you do not have the evidence; that whole 'beyond a reasonable doubt' notion and what not. Your part about defending both the right of people to act like 'complete morons' and also right to a fair trial reminds me of a quote attributed to Voltaire: 'I do not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend your right to say it,' (paraphrased).
ReplyDeleteJust because we weren't a juror doesn't mean we can't find
ReplyDeleteHer guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I saw the evidence & heard the testimony. Murder 1 no but should hv been found guilty of lesser charge.
Consistently excellent commentary that took the high road during this hooplah when scarcely anyone else with a computer or camera or microphone even tried to find the on-ramp.
ReplyDeleteSo you think the fact that a mother let her toddler go missing for 31 days without reporting it doesn't assume some amount of culpability for that? If I was Caylee's age, I wouldn't have been missing for more than a half an hour before my mother would have been trying to get more publicity than the Adam Walsh case got to try and find me.
ReplyDeleteThe justice system failed today, because she was acquitted of everything except lying to the police. She may not have been guilty of first degree murder, but I would have considered 2nd degree murder to be more appropriate, and manslaughter at the very least.
Her negligence resulted in Caylee's death, and the fact that she tried to hide it does more than any other piece of evidence to prove that point.
My opinion was not based on the media. I was there for searches, I spent many hours searching. I do believe that Ms. Anthony is guilty-in my gut. However there is plenty of reasonable doubt, so much so that if I had been on the jury I would have to agree with the actual jurors. It is my right to have an opinion, but when it comes to the FACTS my opinion is thrown out the window, because there was not enough compelling evidence to convict Ms Anthony. Yes, just like with OJ the media jumped to conclusions thinking it was a slam dunk case. They will forever be backtracking, trying to say they misspoke, etc. Hence, innocent until proven guilty.
ReplyDelete"So you think the fact that a mother let her toddler go missing for 31 days without reporting it doesn't assume some amount of culpability for that?"
ReplyDelete"She may not have been guilty of first degree murder, but I would have considered 2nd degree murder to be more appropriate, and manslaughter at the very least."
"Her negligence resulted in Caylee's death."
If you think that the death was due to negligence, then you have absolutely no legal justification for reaching 2nd degree murder.
And post-mortem actions are not evidence of culpable negligence in the death.
LYL.
This reminds me of the Robert Blake murder trial, after which DA Stephen Cooley called the jury "stupid" for their verdict. Thanks for your service.
ReplyDeleteI also feel that the system worked, and that what you see on TV is not what is actually happening in the courtroom. Even though the case was televised, TV viewers did not view all of the evidence, nor did jurors view everything with additional commentary or tear-jerking photos of little Caylee. In any event, I've posted my thoughts on this as well: http://trial-technology.blogspot.com/2011/07/casey-anthony-verdict-was-it-wrong.html
Brian,
ReplyDeleteI am speechless... Speechless that FINALLY somebody put what should have been put from the very beginning into words that people might finally get!
Congratulations.
I know where I'm going when I want blunt advice....
Alistair
"I saw the evidence & heard the testimony."
ReplyDeleteWait, really? You weren't a juror, but you watched every minute of a (what, >6 week?) trial and examined all (>400, I think I heard?) pieces of evidence? That's dedication.
If only I had so much free time...
I love it. Great commentary. Thank you for saying this.
ReplyDeleteDefense lawyer Jose Baez is no Atticus Finch. I strongly object to the photo used with your article. In "To Kill A Mockingbird" , Atticus Finch represented the quest for goodness and truth. Jose Baez represents what's broken in our system.
ReplyDeleteCollene, Dallas, TX
I'm a media studies professor. I agree entirely with your analysis and commentary.
ReplyDeleteBrian-
ReplyDeleteGreat job again! I have shared your post on FB with all the folks looking for her head.
This trial makes it harder to do what we do. People want to make up for what they think is this travesty. So a new set of questions for voir dire.
Thank you for the excellent blog. I followed the complete case, (plus I listened to police interviews - jail house videos - but no media) When the jurors were sent to deliberate, I felt that there was not enough hard evidence to convict - (in fact I could not understand how the State managed to bring this to trial in the first place as the evidence was primarily circumstantial, or, as it turned out in such inconsequential amounts) - The vitriol that I have seen espoused in the social media today is reminiscent
ReplyDeleteof nothing less than a witch hunt - how far we have come! Thank you for the sanity:-)
I did not "follow" the trial. I read a few stories about it, and it seemed to me the prosecution's case was VERY circumstantial.
ReplyDeleteIt was NEVER any more than a 'local' story til that harridan Nancy Grace got a'hold of it and decided to burnish her rep and boost HNN's dismal (and deserved) ratings.
"Oh, look! A Missing White Girl!"
Well stated. The verdict is a reflection of our system of justice. 12 jurors sat for weeks listening and watching. They did not break for commercials or go for a walk and then tune back in. They applied jury instructions and deliberated together discussing the facts. The rest of the world did not. If the jury decided the case based on popular opinion that would be a travesty of justice.
ReplyDeleteI understand why she wasn't convicted of first degree murder. I understand why she wasn't convicted of child abuse. Can somebody tell me how she walked on the manslaughter charge? Because it seems to me that (reading the actual CHARGE against her) letting your child be missing for a MONTH, and being caught in numerous lies WHILE everybody was looking for her (obstruction of justice?) and only standing trial because they finally found your child's body (while you were out partying) should constitute SOME sort of "willful and culpable negligence" that resulted in Caylee's death. Thoughts?
ReplyDeleteThank you for stating what most of us knew. No evidence is no evidence. Over zealous prosecutors, egged on by over zealous media are a bad mix.
ReplyDeleteI couldn't agree with you more. The evidence was shaky, circumstantial, and there was no direct connection to Casey. What the layperson doesn't understand is that the question isn't whether Casey is "guilty" in the blanket way that most use; but rather if the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that she was guilty of the charges against her. I applaud the jury for stepping outside of their emotions and considering the cases presented to them. Remember, they were living in a bubble, sequestered for 6+ weeks while we have been bombarded with media coverage (or vomit) and have been brainwashed into thinking, OF COURSE she's guilty, her daughter was missing for 31 days! You just can't judge what you don't know. Only Casey knows the true story, and I think she is the only person who ever will.
ReplyDeleteI believe the issue at hand is that we know some horrible thing was done to an innocent little girl, whose mother not only admits to playing a part but also acted inappropriately afterwards ( ie the tattoo and the semi-risqué photos ). Maybe her crimes do not equal a textbook definition of man1 or 2, but it shouldn't mean she should get away with nothing more than a "don''t do this again." The human/ primal response is to reject this person from our social circle. I think that is what people are feeling, disappointment. It is like when the bully gets away with being an ass. Everyone knows he is doing something wrong but they can't prove it with hard evidence, everything is just circumstantial. As for juries, let's not give them too much pomp and circumstance. I have sat on a jury three times and was saddened to see the cross section of my community that would help decided the fate of people's lives. I found the experience so disheartening that I hope I never have a need for one. Finally, and this is merely my opinion, I find you posting the To Kill a Mockingbird movie still as a comparison to this case a bit excessive, but I am also someone who finds comparing our President to A. Hitler in bad taste.
ReplyDeleteAs requested: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQ67cYayfvg&feature=channel_video_title
ReplyDeleteI avoided as much of the coverage of this as possible, so let me know if there are other clips I should add.
Well said Brian...I hope this post gets some more traction so people can get an informed perspective of how flawed "journalism" has gotten with respect to criminal cases.
ReplyDeleteWell said.
ReplyDeleteNo murder weapon, no cause of death, and no witnesses.
ReplyDeleteHmmm...Reminds me of Scott Peterson. And yet, today he sits on death row at San Quentin.
The jury in this case deliberately chose to ignore the evidence and expert testimony. I guess they "knew better" than Dr. Garavaglia, Dr. Vass, Dr. Wise, etc. Caylee Anthony must have wrapped herself in a blanket and then got into some garbage bags and a laundry bag. She must have applied the duct tape over her own face. Nope, no homicide here, folks.
With this verdict, we now know that unless a murder is recorded on tape or witnessed by someone, we can never possibly eliminate all "reasonable doubt."
Forgot to add: The writer of this blog seems to greatly dislike the media and its reporting of this case. Yet, in the final paragraph, he trots out the Constitution. Curious.
ReplyDeleteMr Baez & Mr Mason repeatedly talked to the media while this case was ongoing. I guess they only like the media when they are the ones being interviewed. Note also how Baez & Mason rushed to talk to Geraldo as they were popping the champagne and "celebrating" their "victory." I would like the writer of this blog to weigh in on this "party." Is this normal protocol for defense attorneys? Personally, I found it disgusting and tactless. Especially in light of Mr Baez's claim at the presser that "there are no winners here."
"So you think the fact that a mother let her toddler go missing for 31 days without reporting it doesn't assume some amount of culpability for that?"
ReplyDeleteThat's not murder Mike. Reread the elements to all of those crimes that you mentioned. None of that was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
EXCEPT! she was found guilty of lying to the cops.
Great post, Mr.Tannenbaum.
"Forgot to add: The writer of this blog seems to greatly dislike the media and its reporting of this case. Yet, in the final paragraph, he trots out the Constitution. Curious."
ReplyDeleteYeah, because respecting the Constitution -- including the First Amendment -- means you can't criticize shitty, irresponsible reporting. Jesus.
Well put, while I personally believe Casey killed her daughter, I think the jury returned the proper verdict given that there was no definitive cause of death, time or day of death or any other elements that could of pointed towards proving Caylee was murdered let alone murdered by Casey.
ReplyDeleteThank you... i posted it on my Facebook.
ReplyDeleteAlaleh Kamran,
Criminal Defense Attorney
California.
i completely understand and agree with your point. this post is pretty distasteful, but then again i like distasteful shit a lot.
ReplyDeleteregarding the case though, is anyone really all that surprised that a dipshit Anytown, USA DA tried to turn a child neglect/negligent homicide case, at most, to a trial of the century capital murder case? or that the media latched onto the death of a white child with a pretty jagerbomb drinking mom?
An inquisitorial system of criminal procedure like the one in France has its own set of merits: evidence alone remains centripetal to the decision-making process as opposed to case law or legal precedent and this attentive focus to the particulars of the crime in question is essentially maintained free from all loquacious distractions and subjective colorings inhering the second-order argumentation of the adversarial system [procedure rooted in the English Common Law tradition more or less]. Without a jury to be considered within the inquisitorial system, the concern for introducing misleading, biased, or highly inaccessible evidence is also obviated to a much greater extent than from within an adversarial setting. This effectively broadens the judges’ access to all available evidence as filed by law enforcement agencies for example.
ReplyDeleteAt the end of the day, the American adversarial system relies too heavily upon rhetoric and upon the far less critical and often specious means of persuasion as its modus operandi. I believe that a publically disclosed dialectical process of evidence-based reasoning on the part of a cohort of highly-experienced and trained adjudicators would be far more exacting in establishing sound legal rulings in a manner that is much more amenable to public opinion.
I understand the desirability of presumptive innocence which is essential to any democratic society. However, the presumption of innocence is not at all unique to the American legal system nor is this concept incompatible with an inquisitorial system per se. Americans have this tendency of thinking that their institutions are the most democratic in the world and that they are as a result the leaders of the free world. Like most if not all things in life, this is debatable.
But, it will never happen...I know. Nothing ever really changes in this country largely because the Constitution is, let's face it, a product of an absolutist and conservative Enlightenment program [let it be noted that provisions for the highly undemocratic Electoral College is clearly outlined in the sacred constitution as well]. I understand your argument and can see why people would appreciate your line of reasoning but what you say does not hold true necessarily outside of the particular value-system being projected unto everyone else.
Still, your words are important no matter how discomforting they may seem and for this reason they deserve to be seriously considered.
Indeed, why do people readily equate an accusation with a conviction? That is a very good question which makes no sense to the cool and calculating mind. But to be fair, why do self-proclaimed "rationalists" typically pursue strict and overly formal lines of argumentation and technical procedure in utter disavowal of all intuition? Moreover, why are abstractions such as justice and liberty so often treated as if they were concrete things with a comprehensible form and definite composition? Why is one response any more valid than the other? I believe that BOTH intuition AND reason should be respected in a public forum. That is my only real complaint.
America: is it better to see an innocent man in prison, or see a guilty man go free? This is one of those things that sets us apart from other countries.
ReplyDeleteInnocent until PROVEN guilty.
Brian, It's really easy to look at the verdict and be completely supportive of the defense, but I think we all honestly had some doubts about the trial strategy. The "unkept" promises in the opening were troublesome. They did a great job in closing. I felt they really stepped up in a way that the state did not anticipate, but the opening statement (in which they assumed a burden) made many of us look critically upon them.
ReplyDeleteGreat win for the rule of law.
Thanks for this post.
Thanks, appreciated your view, I too am upset with the verdict. However, I think that there is a problem with the media circus that surrounds some of these trials. It does influence the jury in some way. I also do not think that the evidence should be released to the public before the trial begins. In my home country, Canada, frequently there are publication bans, i think the court trys to balance out what the public needs to know and what the public wants to know.
ReplyDeleteThis jury ignored all scientific evidence. They ignored: the bug evidence from her car, the hair with "death-banding", the cadaver dog hits on the car, the evidence from Vass, and the multiple persons who declared that car smelled like death. Heck, even the defense expert stated the car smelled 2 years later. Could someone explain how all this was discounted?
ReplyDeleteApparently, in the state of Florida a jury will allow you to duct tape a child's face, place the child in garbage bags, and proceed to dump the child in a swampy woods. A parent can then fail to report anything for 31 days, lie, and delay until the body skeletonizes. Then, a Florida jury will let you too get away with murder. I doubt I'll be going to Florida anytime soon. Common sense seems to be in short supply. The jury here "knew better." They were smarter than Dr G. They "knew" there was no homicide in any fashion here. What malarkey.
The REALLY disgusting part, for me, is the non-stop appearances of the nastiest women on TV, Nancy Grace and Jane Velez-Mitchell who know everything legal, right?
ReplyDeleteYou are, of course, correct. I am a retired NY attorney. Perhaps what we need is the Scot verdict of "Not Proven". None of the state's evidence of the defendant's activities after the child became missing establishes anything. Perhaps the charge should have been failure to promptly report a missing child -- assuming there is a statute on this? The state failed to prove the date of the child's death, the cause of death; how then could a jury convict?
ReplyDeleteI agree that everyone is entitled to fair representation and is innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law, and I can respect the verdict returned by a jury that was selected to serve as the voice of justice in this case. However, I find a picture of Atticus Finch totally out of place as a comparison to the Casey Anthony trial. The difference between Atticus and the defense team in the Casey Trial is that Atticus was actually representing an innocent individual. Atticus was trying to preserve the rights of an innocent man, not trying to assist a guilty man in beating the justice system.
ReplyDeleteIf the defense strategy of lying as much as you can to get your client off is following the law than I guess I will agree with you. I have never seen such a collection of liars in one place as I did during this trial. Not to mention the jury selection process is designed to pick the unintelligent...proved solidly with this bunch. Justice prevailed? I think not.
ReplyDeleteThis jury ignored all scientific evidence. They ignored: the bug evidence from her car, the hair with "death-banding", the cadaver dog hits on the car, the evidence from Vass, and the multiple persons who declared that car smelled like death. Heck, even the defense expert stated the car smelled 2 years later. Could someone explain how all this was discounted?"
ReplyDeleteThe jury probably had the same analysis of the evidence that I had; it pointed to the death of a Caylee, and it pointed to the body having been in the car. None of that is enough to convict a person of 1st degree murder.
Apparently, in the state of Florida a jury will allow you to duct tape a child's face, place the child in garbage bags, and proceed to dump the child in a swampy woods. A parent can then fail to report anything for 31 days, lie, and delay until the body skeletonizes. Then, a Florida jury will let you too get away with murder. I doubt I'll be going to Florida anytime soon. Common sense seems to be in short supply. The jury here "knew better." They were smarter than Dr G. They "knew" there was no homicide in any fashion here. What malarkey.
Judge Perry made it very clear to the jurors that each one of them was to determine the credibility of each piece of evidence and testimony for themselves. "Dr. G" wasn't able to determine the cause of death, she just assumed it was murder because of the manner in which the body was disposed. I think that was rather irresponsible of her. Her specialty, in medicine, is in forensic pathology... not in psychology or psychiatry. She ought not to have assumed the role of examining why people behaved in a certain way; her job is to determine cause of death, and any other diseases/medical conditions that the victim may have had. That is all.
Excellent points. I didn't watch a minute of evidence or argument of this trial, but I did hear a remarkable amount of rhetoric. As a criminal defense attorney myself, I always applaud juries who are able to hold the state to their burden, especially in the face of what they knew would be a public outcry. Sure, they "knew" she did it. But, thank God for us all that "knowing" a defendant is guilty and proving it are two different things.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Brian, for your post.
ReplyDeleteAs a recently graduated law student (studying for the bar) hoping to work for the public defender, I must say that this trial (and, more specifically, the hoopla surrounding the trial) has made me want to defend those accused of crimes even more.
Those who demonize the jury for making the "wrong" decision, more often than not, had their minds made up before the trial. Casey Anthony was guilty -- she "had" to be because did you say the way she was acting? They focused on her behavior and, generally, things that just didn't like about her. The problem with deducing something from someone's behavior is that you can never predict how someone will react to such an emotional and traumatic situation.
(Not to mention the fact that suppose Casey Anthony really did kill her child -- wouldn't a rational person try to deflect any suspicion off of herself by acting like how a grieving mother should? We are to believe from the prosecution's logic that Casey is capable of coming up with an elaborate premeditated murder plan but wasn't smart enough to act "normally" so as to not raise any eyebrows?)
People believe they're being reasonable when they say: "Yeah, sure, I can understand maybe not First Degree murder, but something less certainly." These same people probably don't realize what it takes to prove murder on any of the counts.
This jury should be commended. They probably knew there was a circus outside, but probably didn't realize the extent to which it was. They will be vilified -- and in the face of such vilification, I commend the fact that they did their jobs. It would've been too easy to vote "Guilty" (on the main charge) and get on with their lives.
People attack the defense -- calling them liars and unscrupulous. A commenter above mentions how this wouldn't be the "Atticus Fitch"-type case because he defended an innocent man and Jose and Co. defended a guilty woman. The flaw in that reasoning is that is presupposes guilt.
Ultimately, like you said, you don't know what happened and neither do we. For some, that's enough to send someone to death row. Thankfully for the 12 whose opinions mattered, it wasn't. This case makes me proud to want to be a defense attorney and only encourages me more.
Great post.
To all you jackasses who keep screaming she should get some kind of punishment:
ReplyDeleteShe has now sat in a small jail cell eating the crap that passes for food in the Orange County Jail for over 3 years. Her life will never be the same. Wherever she goes, you jackasses will treat her worse than you'd treat a dog. Whatever she does anonymity will forever be denied her. Whatever life she had before this is gone forever.
She's been punished and there's more yet to come.
The Sixth Amendment is a terrible awful law that should be changed so that killers can't go free, unless of course you've been accused of a crime. Then it's the sweetest fruit from the tree of liberty.
ReplyDeleteThe jury followed the law and came back with the correct verdict based upon the evidence, not public opinion. I applaud the jury for having the guts to make the unpopular, albeit right decision.
ReplyDeleteWhat a load of legalistic crap! Everyone knows she did it. It's just that our society is so used to seeing "CSI" type forensic evidence that when it comes to using common sense, we are seriously lacking! The media did NOT kill little Caylee....but we all know that SOMEONE did. She did not simply drown and then duct tape her own face and put herself in a garbage bag and hide in the woods. Heaven forgive all of those who forgot about Caylee and focused on 'CSI style forensics to catch her killer, and then let her killer go free!
ReplyDeleteMike said:
ReplyDeleteI would like the writer of this blog to weigh in on this "party." Is this normal protocol for defense attorneys? Personally, I found it disgusting and tactless. Especially in light of Mr Baez's claim at the presser that "there are no winners here."
Mike, I am fearful that the "partying" will have a negative affect on future jurors, but I will never knock Baez, Mason, Sims, etc. for anything they did post-verdict. My worries are purely concerns for my future clients. Who are you to criticize their actions? You obviously have no appreciation for the magnitude of their accomplishment. Unfortunate.
I wonder how long you would have mourned the loss of Casey.
THE EVIDENCE WAS OVERWHELMING. THE JURY JUST CHOSE TO IGNORE IT PERIOD! NOW THEY ARE FEELING SICK TO THIER STOMACHS ABOUT THEIR DECISION. CASEY WILL NEVER EVER HAVE A GOOD LIFE, JAIL MIGHT OF BEEN BETTER FOR HER COMPARED TO HER ROUGH FUTURE AHEAD.
ReplyDeleteDerrick, you got the gist of the quote, but the wrong attribution.
ReplyDelete"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." ~ Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Ms. Hall was a biographer of Voltaire, so it's not uncommon to see her words put in his mouth.
I violated my "no anonymous comments" policy for this post, as some of the anonymous comments were actually thoughful, just written by people who can't understand "non-anonymous comments welcome."
ReplyDeleteAlso, to those critical of me using the atticus finch picture for this post, I didn't. That is the picture at the top of this blog every day.
The woman was acquitted, which means 12 people who were commissioned to decide the facts (not the emotion conjured up by the media) and decided that she was not guilty. You can opine all you want about what you think happened, but it doesn't change the reality that she was acquitted of the charges. People should respect the legal system and not ostracize a person, just because they disagree with the outcome. In doing so, they've given greater deference to the death of a child, based solely of the outcome of a trial. I think that's more than pathetic.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing controversial about the death of the child was created by the media and bought into by the American public, which turned the entire situation into a 3 ring fucking circus. Children are killed everyday, as unfortunate as that is, and nobody cares about those children.
Everyone has the right to pick and choose about who they care about, but it's blatantly obvious that most of these people have no connection to the Anthony family at all. Why they have become so emotionally involved is something I will never be able to comprehend.
People should be upset that the state spends all the resources it does with a weak case. The state didn't prove it's case, and even if the jury had come back with a guilty verdict, this case would have been ripe for appeal.
ReplyDeleteThe state needs to bring the goods to court, and not rely on the dog and pony show media to try the case.
Basically what we have learned is that, you can murder whom ever you wish but as long as there is no weapon and they dont find the body till its decomposed, then you will get off scott free. What a bunch of bullshit to me. She was a baby who will never rest in peace because that pig that she called mommy hurt her this bad and all of america has seen it and today she gets to walk free, make millons for her story. Some many people want her to suffer and pay for the pain of that baby and so many people would love to hurt her, she should probably just do it herself. I am 26 years old myself i have no children and it makes cry to even think about that beautiful baby that will never have her first day of school and the one that took that life is out driving her car today to go to the bar or shopping or the beach whereever she wants because there wasnt enough evidence. Its so sad to know Casey is probably not the only one free for not enough eveidnce.
ReplyDeleteI'm amused when those who create the opportunity for profit by being overly interested in a minor, common case then lament the profit that they've created.
ReplyDeleteAlso, your non-anonymous policy seems pretty lax. :)
Andrew,
ReplyDeletehttp://criminaldefenseblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/embarrassment-of-casey-anthony-verdict.html?showComment=1310107956268#c8302234637067526984
I will confess that I have never heard of, or seen your blog before. But as a fellow criminal defense attorney, I will be following from now on.
ReplyDeleteThis was an excellent post, and it was nice to see someone attempt to clarify the situation in a clear and concise way.