An Opinion On All The Casey Anthony Opinions

I have neither interest nor opinion on the Casey Anthony acquittal. 

No offense to those who followed the trial.  It is interesting.  We all love a “truth-is-stranger-than-fiction” tale.  (My weaknesses are natural disasters and survival stories.)

I do have an opinion on the reaction to the acquittal, though.  The word that best describes this reaction:  visceral.  On Facebook, folks are lamenting how stupid we Americans are, or at least twelve particular Americans, and how broken our system is, and how really terribly awfully difficult it was to watch that terrible awful woman’s reaction to the verdict that frees her.

I’m thinking:  why are you watching then?  Why does her reaction matter to you?  Who can judge a human’s reaction to the announcement of her fate?  Even hubs got into a wee bit of a familial Facebook debate on the topic.

It should be no surprise, then, that I avoid these publicized trials like the plague.  What is this need to pick a side?  What is the point of picking a side in a situation where you have no control nor firsthand knowledge?

How do folks so easily assume they know better than the twelve who sat and watched the trial, weighed the credibility of witnesses, took the judge’s instructions, and pored over the evidence?

Suddenly, I’m reminded why lynch mobs are a bad thing.

You’ll find no debate over facts of the case here.  You’ll find a lively discussion at Stacy McCain’s Big Dog Blog, as usual.  The best “pro-acquittal” comment is here, and the best “anti-acquittal” here.

In that comment string, reasonable minds are definitely differing as to the merits of the prosecution’s case.  The jurors probably had differing opinions, too.  Trouble is, they all have to agree in the end.

Trouble is, the system is set up to err on the side of letting the guilty free.  “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is a stiff standard.  Is that gal guilty?  Let’s see . . . the victim was two years old, she’s the victim’s mom, and she’s a lying eejit.  So yes, she is likely guilty.  More likely than not.

Oops.  “More likely than not” is the standard in a civil trial, not a criminal one.

I know, I know, the CSI effect.  Supposedly, folks aren’t willing to convict unless the case is wrapped up with Christmas bows, as tidy as the TV shows.

To those who blame the CSI effect, I ask:  did it prevent Lizzie Borden’s conviction?

That’s right, Lizzie Borden, circa 1893.  We all know her as the chick that axe-murdered her parents.  She was acquitted, notwithstanding boatloads of circumstantial evidence.

I repeat, the system is set up to err on the side of letting the guilty free.  It stinks, sometimes.  The murderer gets away with it, sometimes.

That fact is proof that the system is still working.

We should be more alarmed about an unchecked prosecuting government than an unhinged partying woman who may have killed her own child.

Cold?  Maybe.  But it’s cold comfort for the innocent whom the state still managed to wrongfully convict, even under the “reasonable doubt” standard.

Which is worse?  The guilty going free, or the innocent getting convicted?  As a liberty lover with a healthy suspicion of state power, I say:  the innocent getting convicted. 

Moreover, should I ever serve on a jury, I expect folks to respect my decision.  That means I have to respect their decisions, too, doesn’t it?

A shorter Linda:  Da Tech Guy.

Oh dear:  She’s pregnant?  Let’s hope not, for safety’s sake.

An interesting theory.

An even more interesting argument:  it’s just a late-term abortion.

Instalanche!  Thank you, Glenn Reynolds.  Especially for the “read the whole thing.”  Wow, I’m smiling.

Tagged: ,

71 thoughts on “An Opinion On All The Casey Anthony Opinions

  1. loopyloo305 5 July 2011 at 9:56 pm Reply

    The only opinion I have on it is that either you respect the law or you don’t. Either you are innocent until proven guilty or not. Either trust the system to work and accept it or change the system.

    • Ted Brooks 6 July 2011 at 1:06 pm Reply

      I have worked on a number of high profile criminal and civil trials in my career, including the Robert Blake murder defense, so I know what it looks like on the inside. While Nancy Grace and the HLN team seemed to imply this was a done deal, as I watched the verdict being published, I can’t say that I was shocked. During deliberations, the jury has only their notes and admitted evidence to work with. Although we were given an opportunity to see most of the evidence presented to the jury, they were not viewing it along with a picture of little Caylee in one corner, and “Tot-Mom” in another. Visual presentation can be very persuasive.

  2. […] via An Opinion On All The Casey Anthony Opinions « NoOneOfAnyImport. […]

  3. danshe98 5 July 2011 at 10:23 pm Reply

    I heard nothing of the jurors “poring over” the facts of the case. 9 hours deliberating sounds to me like “I’m tired and ready to go home to my family.”

    • Time Traveller 6 July 2011 at 4:02 am Reply

      The time that a jury stays out is no measure of the quality of that jury. It is more a measure of how much or how little of the evidence is in dispute.

    • bellalu0 10 July 2011 at 8:26 am Reply

      Juror No. 3 (the 30 something nursing student but isn’t in school right now and lives with her mother) said it all when she said “We started to go over some stuff….” I think we had a lazy jury.

  4. ThePaganTemple 5 July 2011 at 10:26 pm Reply

    Thanks for the link.

  5. Brian 5 July 2011 at 10:47 pm Reply

    The “better that 10 men go free” argument, which you’re making here, is too easy and simplistic, because some of those 10 guilty who go free will murder more innocent people. And those subsequently murdered innocents will be just as dead – and their families just as sorrowful – when they are murdered by a private actor, rather than by the State.

    So suck on that for a while.

    • Mike O'Horo 7 July 2011 at 5:17 pm Reply

      It seems that people who favor reversing the system risk in favor of more wrong convictions over more wrong acquittals tend to place greater faith in the integrity of the police/prosecutor end of the criminal justice system than the statistics would warrant. Police and prosecutorial abuse is the thing to fear the most. For every additional life ruined by the wrongly acquitted murderer, rapist, assaulter, scammer, etc., hundreds more are ruined by the abusive power of the state.

      Whether through incompetence, desire for professional advancement and reward, meanness or sheer accident, the power of the criminal justice system can change the life of the innocent in permanently destructive ways. Merely by formally accusing you and arresting you, long before guilt or innocence is established, the 6:00 News will make sure that you’ll suffer the social and professional impact of being perceived as a likely criminal. Many savings accounts, 2nd mortgages and months later, nobody will even know that you weren’t guilty. The stigma remains.

      Fear no one like you fear the state. Just because you’ve never committed a felony, and are pretty certain that you won’t, doesn’t mean that you won’t be mistakenly accused, arrested and arraigned for one.

      Everyone sings to the tune of his master. The police’s master is public perception. “Catch the killer!” We demand a killer; they give us one. Whether or not it’s the right one is less important than delivering one, particularly if the case is such that it inflames public outrage or emotion. The DA’s master is the PR machine and political apparatus. We demand a conviction. We don’t want the courts freeing the guilty whom the police caught. Once again, it doesn’t matter if we got it right, only that we “got our man.”

      When prisoners are released from Death Row after some public service lawyer reopens a case with new DNA evidence or the result of other technologies not available during the original trial, we all feel bad that the guy got stiffed with a wrongful 20 years of his life forfeited, but we don’t seem to translate that into outrage at wrongful convictions and insistence on greater prosecutorial diligence or discipline, or sanctions against police who fabricate damning evidence or hide exculpatory evidence.

      Your leeriness of any organization should be in direct proportion to its power and attendant ability to destroy your life.

  6. So Sad 5 July 2011 at 10:58 pm Reply

    I hear ya, but then one name comes to mind: OJ Simpson.

    Sorry, but we have serious problems in the legal system.

    • too visceral 7 July 2011 at 11:14 am Reply

      why? because the law didn’t go YOUR way? that’s spoiled behavior, not justice

  7. Steve239 5 July 2011 at 11:14 pm Reply

    “And those subsequently murdered innocents will be just as dead – and their families just as sorrowful”

    This is tempered by the fact that much of the time the next victims of these folks will be friends or family as well. Plus, another argument to be armed.

  8. Max Regor 5 July 2011 at 11:20 pm Reply

    Too bad Henry Fonda was not on the jury.

  9. mikejackson 6 July 2011 at 12:03 am Reply

    “Which is worse? The guilty going free, or the innocent getting convicted? As a liberty lover with a healthy suspicion of state power, I say: the innocent getting convicted. ”

    I agree with you on this, but that rule applys only to women (and some other protected groups, at times).

    Look at the Scott Petersen case . There was not a tenth of the circumstantial and physical evidence available to convict him, and much of what the jury used to convict him was exactly the type of inappropriate behavior that was dismissed by this jury. A man’s guilt is assumed. A woman’s guilt not only has to be proven beyond any doubt, but also the victim must be proven to have not deserved to be murdered.

    How many women have walked or gotten low sentences for 2nd degree manslaughter after killing their sleeping husbands? Even with direct evidence of murder, the rules are simply different for women.

    And look at how the rules of evidence have changed for rape cases.
    Are you going to argue with a straight face that the American justice system operates with the notion that “better 10 rapists go free than an innocent man be convicted”?

    • nooneofanyimport 6 July 2011 at 9:02 am Reply

      You make a good point about the Petersen case. Since I don’t follow these trials, I didn’t even think about the similarities. Huh, the double standard may indeed be to blame.

      • too visceral 7 July 2011 at 11:22 am Reply

        justice can be fickle, but so can people…it could be double standards or just different issues (Petersen was guilty, while Anthony was truly innocent, just a bad mom). You can’t be perfect, and I *always* keep in mind, esp in cases of the accused “there but for the grace of God, go I” which is why this rage by the public scares me. They want “justice” to provide (ie the courts to save them) for them but anyone else is “instantly guilty” and should be lynched.

        and why are people so invested in THIS crime? I can easily accused the outraged with racism…you never see this much rage over the death of a cute toddler. Had Anthony been accused of offing an old dude, it would only be mentioned in Florida once.

  10. spmat 6 July 2011 at 12:11 am Reply

    You have no love of justice. You only love expediency.

    • too visceral 7 July 2011 at 11:24 am Reply

      absolutely…esp over a cute white toddler
      what also gauls me is that if she had been found guilty and given the death penalty, she would have waited for at least 10 years before it happened. By then the same people would have forgotten completely about her and had latched onto another “outrage”

  11. astrodog 6 July 2011 at 12:53 am Reply

    What a mindless bunch of drivel. Yes, the guilty going free means the system “works.” And the old standby about better to acquit the guilty than punish the innocent, etc. Of course the system only works if the jury decision is rational. And certainly a system capable of convicting the guilty is better than a system that let’s the guilty off for no good reason. Isn’t that the point? An acquital doesn’t mean the system works if the acquital is a product of the jury’s collective stupidity. Did the OJ verdict prove that the system works? Or did it prove that wealth and celebrity can be a toxic get out of jail free card? So excuse me if I don’t magically place the jury or the “system” on some sort of pedestal. I prefer a jury system but that doesn’t mean we just ignore a jury created travesty.

    • I Callahan 6 July 2011 at 11:35 am Reply

      “Of course the system only works if the jury decision is rational.”

      Isn’t this begging the question? So it isn’t rational unless the jury comes up with the verdict you want? Who decides who is rational? Maybe the jurors thought they were being rational.
      How was this not a rational decision? They don’t even have a cause of death. The defense theory (as implausible as it may seem) completely comports with the known facts of the case. That is reasonable doubt to those jurors.

      It looks like you are letting your emotions get the better of you (proving the author’s point). Learn to be more objective.

      • ThePaganTemple 6 July 2011 at 4:48 pm Reply

        The people that bitch about the jury in this case (or any other) weren’t in their place. They were there throughout the entirety of the proceedings, and saw and heard it all. All the rest of us heard bits and pieces filtered through the lens of a ratings and advertising sales driven “news” media.

  12. fleeceme 6 July 2011 at 1:38 am Reply

    Wow, some of the responses here are rather striking. Either you believe in our criminal justice system or you don’t, but don’t indict the system if your true “beef” is with the jurors. For sure juries make wrong decision, and you have every right to suggest they are morons, but don’t accuse the system of being broken because of those moronic jurors.

    If on the other hand, the system is what is broken, then maybe some suggestions on how to remedy that might give some weight to your collective bemoaning.

  13. Time Traveller 6 July 2011 at 3:54 am Reply

    Ignore your detractors, Linda – you are right.

    • nooneofanyimport 6 July 2011 at 9:09 am Reply

      Aw, TT, thanks. Your kind words help, especially when I have to read stuff like “mindless drivel” and “simplistic.” And was “suck on that” really necessary?

      But then, I have to remember that this case stirred a lot of emotions up. It’s the strong emotional reaction that inspired me to post.

  14. […] Linked by my No One of Any Important who had the base Instalanche (well deserved too) and a great debate in comments on Jury Duty. I’ve always gone but now that I’m […]

  15. Dave 6 July 2011 at 6:29 am Reply

    I agree with all your points. However, none of that needs to negate the outrage that I and others feel about this verdict. You yourself acknowledge that she is probably guilty. We’re not talking about jaywalking here. There is a dead defenseless little girl and a mother who couldn’t care. Outrage? You better believe it.

    • I Callahan 6 July 2011 at 11:39 am Reply

      “Outrage? You better believe it.”

      I assume you’re a parent?

      I don’t want to sound callous here, but it seems to me that when it comes to kids, parents have a difficult time being objective. I doubt your outrage would be as great if the victim were an abusive boyfriend, or some other adult.

      This is another comment that proves the author’s point – the emotion this verdict brought has clouded what judgment some people have.

  16. Ryan Aaron 6 July 2011 at 6:54 am Reply

    The Jury substituted “Beyond any doubt” for “Beyond a REASONABLE doubt,.

    • JusticeisDelayed 8 July 2011 at 11:13 am Reply

      So, so, so TRUE.

  17. Mike T 6 July 2011 at 7:47 am Reply

    The “better that 10 men go free” argument, which you’re making here, is too easy and simplistic, because some of those 10 guilty who go free will murder more innocent people.

    That argument assumes a 10:1 ratio between guilty and innocent men. If you follow civil liberties news, you could be forgiven for thinking the ratio is much lower than that in many serious felonies.

  18. Doug Rivers 6 July 2011 at 8:18 am Reply

    Appreciate your thoughts, but this “That fact is proof that the system is still working.” is wrong! The opposite is true. This proves the system is flawed. Anybody with a modicum of common sense (just like OJ) knows she cruelly killed (whether murder or manslaughter) her daughter. Yet, ‘the system’ set her free to party again.

    Just like the oost-OJ verdict hoopla, you make the mistake of viewing everything through the trial lawyer prism. Yes, she was acquitted according to the rules. That may be a good thing from the trial lawyer perspective (do their consciences ever bother them when they go home and the celebrity limelight fades?), but you see, that’s a bad thing from a human being perspective. The answer is to tweek ‘the system’ so that the murderers among us are no longer among us. And, no, I have no idea how to do it. Maybe it can’t be done. But lets not pretend this atrocity is anything other than what it is.

  19. wait what 6 July 2011 at 8:33 am Reply

    “That fact is proof that the system is still working.”

    While multitudes of people rot in jail or suffer fines for things they didn’t do or that are constitutionally protected in the first place — and the “system is still working”? I’m sorry, but that just fails the laugh test.

  20. bandit08 6 July 2011 at 8:35 am Reply

    It’s incredible that she got tried by a jury of her peers. Who knew you could get 12 white trash ho’s on a jury.

  21. nooneofanyimport 6 July 2011 at 9:25 am Reply

    Loopyloo, Fleecy, Dave at #17, Doug Rivers #20, and wait what #21: thanks for your thoughtful comments. They are good points all.

    It is natural to be outraged about a child murder. And I have written a post devoid of that natural outrage, which is disturbing perhaps.

    One thing I’ll clarify. I said that an acquittal is “proof that the
    system is working.” I did not say that it’s proof the system is working flawlessly, providing justice in each and every case. Obviously, the system is flawed, because people are flawed. We can never hope to perfect it. We can just do the best we can whenever called to jury duty.

  22. imc 6 July 2011 at 9:58 am Reply

    A jury of trial by a jury of your peers will sometimes result in flawed decisions – I am not perfect after all, so why should I expect my peers to be? However, it is the best system I can think of, and for people to rubbish this for the odd occasions when potentially guilty people go free seems pointless, especially since none of the detractors seem to have anything better to put in its place.

    Speaking as a UK expat, I think a bigger problem in the US is the ‘show trial’ nature of these court cases. Stop televising them for the public’s delectation, for god’s sake this is serious business that should be conducted soberly without the media circus intruding. I watched a Fox 7 report yesterday evening (5th July) that showed poll results from their viewers, with 11% agreeing with the jury’s verdict and 89% disagreeing: all this poll tells me is that 100% of people responding to the poll don’t have all the facts and have not sat through all the evidence. Utterly meaningless in respect of the case and how it was judged.

    • I Callahan 6 July 2011 at 11:47 am Reply

      Now this I could get behind. We live in a 24/7 news cycle now, for better or worse. Too much opinion and not enough hard news analysis. That 89% disagreed with the verdict ought to be proof enough that people don’t have all of the facts. The fact that anyone asked the public their opinion gives validation to those opinions, which news organizations ought not do.

      Also, think of a hypothetical: let’s say down the road a ways, Casey Anthony tries to start a new life somewhere. Since she’s the most famous “mother who got away with it”, it’ll be almost impossible to find a job or find anyone who will trust her. And let’s say then, someone comes forward with new evidence that something else happened to Caylee, and this bit of evidence completely exonerates her.

      Anyone want to bet that Casey Anthony won’t still be a pariah after that? She wouldn’t be a pariah if the media hadn’t sensationalized this case.

      • nooneofanyimport 6 July 2011 at 12:32 pm Reply

        I’m with you, I Callahan. imc is spot on regarding the media circus being a major cause of the problem. not sure how to get around that, though, given the public nature of criminal trial.

        • Nojusticenolatte 8 July 2011 at 11:20 am Reply

          Scott Petersen was convicted on similar type of circumstantial evidence presented in the Casey Anthony case, and THAT was a media circus too.
          So I think that GENDER BIAS played a larger factor in the outcome of this trial than the 24/7 media circus.

  23. roxannadanna 6 July 2011 at 10:05 am Reply

    Great to see you back, Lin! And glad all is well with you and your family.

    Great blog post too.

  24. gus3 6 July 2011 at 10:20 am Reply

    You’re right about the reactions being visceral. The known facts were circumstantial, and none of them reasonably proved either how Kaylee died, or that she died at Casey’s hands.

    That’s right: the prosecution’s evidence was insufficient to convince a handful of people, once it was subjected to skeptical scrutiny.

    I hope you outraged people are never on a jury in a capital case. That would be symptom #1 of a truly broken system.

  25. […] NoOneofAnyImport’s Blog – An Opinion On All The Casey Anthony Opinions […]

  26. […] only thing I have ever said, or will ever say, on the subject of the Casey Anthony trial: I endorse this post in its entirety: I have neither interest nor opinion on the Casey Anthony acquittal. No offense to […]

  27. Ellie in T.O. 6 July 2011 at 11:00 am Reply

    “The murderer gets away with it, sometimes. That fact is proof that the system is still working.”

    If the murderer gets away with it then the system is by definition NOT working.

    “We should be more alarmed about an unchecked prosecuting government than an unhinged partying woman who may have killed her own child. Cold? Maybe.”

    Uh, no “maybe” about it. You really are one cold-blooded reptile. The honest anger of what you choose to characterize as a “mob” seems more profoundly human and decent to me. They want justice to be served, and you don’t; end of story.

    • I Callahan 6 July 2011 at 11:48 am Reply

      No, Ellie, you want revenge. That is not justice.

      You’re having a difficult time seeing logic through your anger. The author’s case in point.

  28. SkipKent 6 July 2011 at 11:56 am Reply

    “I *know* she did it! Just look at her eyes!” is, thankfully, not enough to put someone on Death Row in this day and age. If you think she’s guilty, get out there and prove it by arguing and clarifying the facts of the case.

    Anything less *is* mob justice. The fact that you feel deeply about the situation doesn’t change that.

    Yes, the anger in many cases is human and decent. But it is also human to ignore facts as we get swept up in a wave of popular opinion. Sometimes, the reality we rail against is not reality at all. Most of the time, actually.

    “Yeah, but a little girl is dead and you don’t even care!”

    Of course I care, and so does the author of this piece. Demonstrating that you ‘care’ by being the loudest mouth in the mob is nothing to be proud of. Volume and tears do not define the truth. Our courts, however imperfect, exist for exactly this reason. It’s not like the accused was some wealthy socialite who was able sway anyone with money or a perfect smile. The jury heard the evidence and arrived at their verdict.


    Fine. Shout until your head explodes to make sure the rest of us know what a deeply compassionate human being you are.

  29. nooneofanyimport 6 July 2011 at 12:35 pm Reply

    Excellent points all, from I Callahan, imc, gus3, and SkipKent. Thanks to everyone for visiting and commenting. (Even the ones that think I’m a reptile. I’m a magnanimous reptile, at least.)

  30. John A 6 July 2011 at 12:50 pm Reply

    Scotland has, or recently had, a legal verdict which might work for cases such as this: Not Proven.

  31. Jen 6 July 2011 at 2:19 pm Reply

    You mention that it is worse for the “innocent to be convicted” than for “the guilty to go free.” This is so true for the simple fact that when the innocent are convicted, the guilty are free anyhow! Good blog, Lin! :-)

  32. Country Thinker 6 July 2011 at 2:49 pm Reply

    That you have gotten so much hostility is a tribute to the deep nerve you touched on. I appreciate that you stuck out your neck and grabbed ahold of the live wire. It would have been easier to let your thoughts slide than to bring them to light.

    While in law school I met a man who spent almost a decade on death row. The prosecutor fabricated evidence to put a high-profile case to rest. The system is indeed imperfect.

  33. Conservatives on Fire 6 July 2011 at 4:45 pm Reply

    Nice to see your making new friends, NoOne. LOL

    Our system isn’t perfect but it will have to do until someone comes up with something better. there will always be backseat drivers and arm chair quaterbacks. It was the job of those twelve juors to arrive at a conclussion. How can anyone else second guess them.

  34. Teresa Rice 6 July 2011 at 4:56 pm Reply

    I am not going to fault the justice system but I am going to fault the jurors, at least mostly. I just think that in this type of high profile case 9 hours is way too short a period of time to proclaim the defendant’s innocence or guilt. I also think that the TV show CSI or the CSI mentality has done a disservice to jurors. Plus, I think the judge in the jurors instructions actually told them something wrong according to the law – about having to convict on the highest charge if they found her guilty.

  35. LoboSolo 6 July 2011 at 6:09 pm Reply

    I see “hang ’em” comments all the time in other trials. People want to convict the accused even before the trial. It’s gets worse when there is a child involved or statutory rape … I really worry about our legal system sometimes because, at some point, many of these people will be called to serve on a jury. I can only hope that they find a reason to duck it!

  36. Bob Mack 6 July 2011 at 8:10 pm Reply

    I have no opinion on the Anthony trial, didn’t watch any of it, didn’t read about it. But, having sat on many a jury in my time, the last being 3 weeks ago, my humble opinion is that many jurors do not understand the difference between reasonable doubt and no doubt at all. On the other hand, as Lobo said above, some of the 12 will rubber stamp anything a prosecutor hands ’em. I’ve seen both kinds. You pays your money & takes your chances.

  37. SDH 6 July 2011 at 8:52 pm Reply

    Ha!. I read this on Insty this morning, but I didn’t know it was you until now. Next time I promise I’ll read the whole thing.

    Very nicely done.

  38. nooneofanyimport 6 July 2011 at 9:46 pm Reply

    Country Thinker: wow, fabricated evidence, talk about injustice. happens in various ways more often than people realize. I’m not always willing to be controversial, but I feel pretty strongly about this particular opinion.

    Conservs on Fire: LOL new friends, yep. Mebbe a coupla enemies too . . .

    Teresa Rice: yeah maybe the jury made a mistake. I don’t really know but it’s always well possible. I haven’t heard about judge error, hmm.

    Lobo Solo: hi there, thx for visiting. I think you are right–especially regarding when kids are involved, folks are hard pressed to control their emotions.

    Mr. Mack, LOL you gotta way of summing it all up with a mere snippet of droll common sense. A real gift.

    • Country Thinker 7 July 2011 at 6:45 am Reply

      Alan Dershowitz agrees with your assessment in his WSJ editorial today: (or google “Casey Anthony: The System Worked”)

      You stated: “Which is worse? The guilty going free, or the innocent getting convicted? As a liberty lover with a healthy suspicion of state power, I say: the innocent getting convicted.”

      It turns out, as Dershowitz points out, that your conceptualization of criminal justice has Biblical roots going back to the days of Abraham. It’s rather ironic that folks who I suspect are conservative Christians are the most outraged by the verdict.

      I also like that Dershowitz points out the Scottish delivery of a verdict: “not proven.” that’s a more accurate statement than “not guilty.”

      • nooneofanyimport 7 July 2011 at 8:44 am Reply

        wow, Ted, thanks for the link and the info. I didn’t know about the Biblical roots.

        I always noticed that my crim law tendencies are towards defense, which goes against the “tough on crime” conservative stance. It is one reason why I use the small “l” libertarian label when I must label myself.

      • Mike O'Horo 7 July 2011 at 5:33 pm Reply

        I must disagree with the use of the Scottish, “Not proven.” It implies that the lack of conviction lies in the state’s performance, not in the person’s innocence. Since neither is known, favoring the interpretation of failure to prove invites the inference that the guilty escaped justice, and it gives the benefit of presumption to the prosecution. Since there is no offsetting finding, e.g., “Nothing to prove,” this one-sided version is counterproductive, IMO.

  39. brucetheeconomist 6 July 2011 at 11:13 pm Reply

    Wow!!! I’ve largely ignored this circus, but what a way to get folks talking huh??

  40. Bob Mack 6 July 2011 at 11:22 pm Reply

    “We have a criminal jury system which is superior to any in the world; and its efficiency is only marred by the difficulty of finding twelve men every day who don’t know anything and can’t read.”– Mark Twain

  41. Tonestaple 7 July 2011 at 9:00 am Reply

    I am outraged by the jury’s decision but I don’t think it means that things are horribly wrong with the criminal justice system. I recognize that I didn’t pay enough attention to the entire trial to justify having any certainty about Casey Anthony’s actions, but who else killed that poor child?

    The one time I have been called for jury duty, I showed up and I was picked for the jury, and we did a good job, following all of the judge’s instructions, and evaluating the evidence like any jury should. I was hoping I wouldn’t get picked, but it ended up being very interesting, and I would happily do it again, although I hope I would never be picked for a long trial or a “media circus” one.

  42. Keith DeHavelle 7 July 2011 at 1:40 pm Reply

    I did not follow this trial at all; I’d heard the name before, but the first details of the case came at the time of accidentally hearing the verdict being announced, and some subsequent commentary.

    There are many flaws, unfortunately, with such processes — ranging from publicity to prejudices to what an attorney cynically described as “people too stupid to get out of jury trials”; I have no opinion at this moment on the effect any of this had on this result.

    I had occasion to read the transcript of OJ Simpson’s criminal trial (with many glaring flaws) and the subsequent civil trial (somewhat better). The evidence was much the same, though more was allowed in during the civil trial in which OJ was found liable for the murders.

    I’ve no reason at this point to “go after” this case, but I’d be unsurprised to see the same sorts of problems that I’ve become familiar with. To a certain extent, these arise from the government effect; bureaucracy can screw up almost anything.

    What should be done? First of all, it would be very nice to see attorneys actually get reprimanded in some way for lying. Currently, it is the accepted practice, and the biggest lies are the most rewarded. The criterion is how well you got away with it.

    Failing such reform, an initial course for jurors that points out that attorneys regularly lie as a normal thing would help. As an octopus might say, “forewarned is eight-armed.”

    ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

  43. Patty 8 July 2011 at 12:55 pm Reply

    not one of us can judge this case fairly. Our ideas are affected by the media and those around us. We need to give the jurors credit for their decision. Unless we were sequestered and sat through every minute of this trial we can not make a fair judgment. I know every jury decision may not be perfect but how intelligent are we if we think we know the answers when all we’ve listened to is bits and pieces

  44. […] An Opinion On All The Casey Anthony Opinions […]

  45. […] FREAKING CRAP! Casey Anthony Becomes the O.J. Simpson of Baby-KillersInstapunditMarfdratDa Tech GuyNoOneOfAnyImportScared MonkeysComments From Left Field‘Hey, TSA, Is That My iPad in Your Pants, or Are You […]

  46. DJ 10 July 2011 at 10:19 pm Reply

    Please Please Please! America wake up. You have fallen victim to the medias attempt to formulate your opinions based on what they report to you. Thank you to whoever that the jurors do not have access to the nonsensical jargon that is being spoon fed to you, even after the trial is over!. Don’t you realize that without the sensationalism of this event, created by the media, that there would be no story at all. Think about it. There must be many similar cases that occur each year that we simply do not here about. It is a manufactured manipulation of facts both real and made up that keep you tuning to the TV. Without that THEY HAVE NO JOB!
    They took a person and turned her into someone you do not like and said YES shes guilty!
    No trial, No jury, nothing.
    Is she guilty? Of being a bad mother? Yes maybe! Of lies? Yes indeed. Of murder? I do not know. I was not there for the examination of the unbiased and uncontaminated facts behind the case.
    Do you condemn a person based on facial expressions or public opinion. Boy I hope not. Because some of you may be faced with a situation someday where your guilt or innocence is based on your reactions.
    We have been conditioned in this country by media opinion, to Hang em and Hang em high. Without the total and complete facts. This is NOT blind justice.
    Shame on you HLN for using a family to subsidize your advertising dollars.
    I love my country. What I love most about it is that no matter what no one will cut off your hand for stealing without finding out if you stole in the first place.

  47. […] An Opinion On All The Casey Anthony Opinions […]

  48. […] In a sane world, this revelation would create more of an uproar than that Casey Anthony acquittal did. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: