Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

2 Bumps

"The Casey Anthony Verdict: Jurors Did the Right Thing" - thoughts?

Nancy Grace is livid. She had been shilling for months for a conviction of Casey Anthony for allegedly murdering her two-year-old daughter, Caylee, and now the jury has acquitted Anthony of murder charges. What's a gal like Nasty Nancy to do?

Perhaps the first thing that Nasty Nancy should do is to read the laws of this country, and learn the standards that supposedly exist for conviction. Even though Nasty Nancy's standards for conviction are simple – an accusation automatically means one is guilty – the legal standard actually is "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."

(One must remember that Nasty Nancy during the Duke Lacrosse Case, in which she automatically declared the lacrosse players guilty of gang rape, actually tried to claim that the legal presumption of innocence was a creation of Hitler's Germany. I'm serious.)

During the trial of Casey Anthony, the prosecution managed to establish what people already knew:

The skeletal remains found were those of Caylee and there was duct tape sticking to her skull;
Casey lied to the police about a number of things;
Casey denied murdering her daughter;
Casey was not a person of the highest character.

Some of those things are damning indictments if a woman applies for the Mother of the Year Award or is trying to be a role model to young women. I would hope that none of my daughters turns out to be like Casey Anthony.

However, having a bad character does not mean one is a murderer. If that were so, then Washington, D.C., would be the murder capital of the world. (Come to think of it, not long ago, D.C. WAS the murder capital of the world, and it is true that bad character abounds in that city. Nonetheless, my original point stands.)

Seizing on the duct tape, prosecutors then claimed that Casey smothered her child with it in order to get rid of her so that she could be a Big Party Animal. The problem was that they had no idea if the child were smothered with duct tape or not, none. They were engaging in conjecture, and any jury that takes its job seriously is not going to convict on the basis of a pretty loose conjecture.

Now, had Casey's DNA been found on the duct tape, that might have demonstrated a connection to the prosecution's narrative, but, alas, they found nothing of the sort. What they had was a little girl's skeletal remains and a mother of less-than-savory character.

In the end, the jury did convict Casey Anthony of the obvious: she lied to the police. The crimes are misdemeanors, and the maximum she could get if the sentences for each of the four counts are run consecutively is four years, and she already has been jailed for three. Thus, whatever time she will spend in jail almost is over.

I predict that in the coming days, Nasty Nancy will be hounding the jurors and doing everything but demanding that lynch mobs burn down the jurors' houses. Certainly, the Usual Suspects in the media will denounce what they see as a wrongful acquittal.

Yet, what I see is a jury that did its job. Prosecutors demanded that jurors engage in speculation, and the jurors refused to do that, and I applaud them for their integrity. Maybe Casey Anthony did murder her daughter, but the prosecution never proved it, and jurors are supposed to acquit when that happens. And it happened.

July 7, 2011

William L. Anderson, Ph.D. [send him mail], teaches economics at Frostburg State University in Maryland, and is an adjunct scholar of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He also is a consultant with American Economic Services. Visit his blog.


Asked by -Eilish- at 11:48 AM on Jul. 7, 2011 in Politics & Current Events

Level 28 (33,578 Credits)
This question is closed.
Answers (22)
  • My thought is a little girl is dead and NO ONE is being convicted of murder. It makes me sick.

    Answer by CollinsMommy729 at 11:50 AM on Jul. 7, 2011

  • I honestly think today's society has gone "CSI Happy" and need a crucial amount of evidence in order to truly convict someone. That being said, the prosecution I think is partially at fault as far as their allegations go. They can't prove 100% she did it, based on evidence and I think they could have made a better case had the charges not been so outrageous. No one can say positively whether she did or didn't, despite her obvious body language and characteristics, but the prosecution should have used what they had and come up with other charges, like neglect. The 31 days alone could have made this pan out differently had the prosecution pursued to focus more on that. Focusing solely on murder and death penalty as punishment was their first mistake. I do think some of the evidence that was presented was substantial, but was overlooked for reasons I don't know why. If they're smart, the investigation will keep going.

    Answer by DJsMommy610 at 11:51 AM on Jul. 7, 2011


    Good job cutting and pasting~here's mine.


    Answer by chgomom at 11:50 AM on Jul. 7, 2011

  • As much as I would have liked to have seen the murderer of Caylee Anthony charged- whoever and how not withstanding- the fact is there was not enough proof to convict anyone of anything. Do I believe Casey Anthony had something to do with it? Yeah I do. Was there sufficient proof? No. To much time had passed. To many lies were thrown out. To much he said she said. the entire case was completely based on speculation (both sides) and no one seemed to be able to keep their story straight. I am disappointed nothing was gained by the trial but yes- the jury did the right thing.

    Answer by But_Mommie at 11:54 AM on Jul. 7, 2011

  • My local area does not pick educated people to sit on a jury. The reason (told by me from a solicitor in our office) is because tgey need db people to believe every word said. Well, I don't think just because you did not graduate from high school you are an idiot or less than smart. And it back fired. They chose the jury. You do know the prosecution gets a say on who sits? While the defence gets a say - it is was not expected to be a very defense friendly jury. The state fucked up.

    Answer by frogdawg at 12:34 PM on Jul. 7, 2011

  • My first thought is that Nancy Grace is a publicity whore.

    As for the Casey Anthony thing, I didn't watch the case. But I feel she got a fair trial. IF, and from what I hear this is the case, the jury took all the EVIDENCE in to account and made their ruling accordingly, then they did the right thing. Even if they didn't make the choice that the general public wanted them to make. Our legal system is set up in a way that is meant not to punish the guilty, but to distinguish between guilty and not-guilty. Not Guilty doesn't necessarily meant innocent you know... In this case, I don't believe the jury thought she was innocent - they just thought, from what they evidence said, that she was not guilty of first degree murder... It's that simple. So yes, as long as they followed the evidence to their verdict, they did the right thing.

    Answer by SabrinaMBowen at 11:59 AM on Jul. 7, 2011

  • Elish! Holy crap!!! For tge first time I agree with you a hundred percent!!! And sabrina if I could I would vote you up a hundred times for the whore Nancy statement. I actually chocked with laughter.

    Answer by frogdawg at 12:28 PM on Jul. 7, 2011

  • I watched the whole trial from beginning to end, there is no way in hell those jurors took the time to look at all the evidence provided, the prosecutor proved their case against her if not for murder one for a lesser charge, they did not do their job, they wanted to go home and get it over with. Only two of the jurors had gone to school as far as the 11th grade, the rest had stories of their own including DUI's and assorted things. The only thing done wrong is this trial is not picking a juror correctly, this is the heart and soul of any case.......

    Answer by older 3

    This says it all.

    Answer by Carpy at 3:53 PM on Jul. 7, 2011

  • Oh I agree with you 100% ... It's very upsetting that the murderer was not held responsible, but I really have to wonder if the prosecution failed to prove who the murderer was. If I was a juror, I would have been pissed as hell to have to make a determination on circumstantial evidence.

    Comment by -Eilish- (original poster) at 11:52 AM on Jul. 7, 2011

  • I agree with you, 100%.

    Answer by Candi1024 at 11:52 AM on Jul. 7, 2011