Okay, I’ve semi-recovered from the Casey Anthony verdict. I was going to have this all on a +&- post but I’d rather give it its own forum.
There was no smoking gun, plain and simple. Juror #3 has spoken and admits that they wanted to convict her but there just wasn’t enough evidence. I agree. Everyone who was outraged at the verdict was going on emotions, gut feelings and connecting dots. This was a circumstantial case and while a lot of people have been convicted on circumstantial evidence, Casey wasn’t one of them. Maybe if the death penalty wasn’t an option, they could’ve come to a different decision. I just don’t know.
I also think the credibility issues of Casey’s parents contributed to saving her. That family is screwed and I don’t think the jury couldn’t get beyond that. The inconsistent science was a mess as well. Towards the end of it all, I was starting to think that maybe it was an accident that spiraled out of control (not that anyone should drug their kid to go out and party) and it’s just that reasonable doubt that keeps innocent people from going to jail.
So help me god, I will absolutely lose it if this bitch is a regular on some TV show like Tonya Harding, 10 years from now.
Your thoughts?
You may also enjoy:
I am not going to use this post to bash Valentine's Day. I'll admit I'm not a ...
I finally charged my iPod yesterday. It's been over a month since I listened to ...
All less than a block from my front door. God, I love Spring! ...
for your Friday!
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
I completely agree with everything you said. If the evidence wasn’t strong enough to support a guilty verdict, there was nothing else they could do. I don’t honestly know if that kid was murdered or if her death was an accident, but her mother being a fucked-up compulsive liar does not automatically make her a murderer. I do know this – something is *not right* with that family.
Yeah, that family is wacko. I hate hearing tv say that the prosecution didn’t do a good enough job. If there’s no evidence, what can you do. Whoever put her in the swamp got really lucky.
One of the prosecutors was on TV explaining that they figured the evidence regarding the way Caylee was killed was clear and that the jury would see what they saw. Which seemed crazy/lazy to me, or else just a spin to avoid saying they really didn’t have enough solid evidence.
If they couldn’t prove without doubt how the child died, then how did they expect to prove Casey killed her?
Also, I didn’t follow the trial all that closely, but did they look into mental problems at all? It seems like Casey could be bipolar or a sociopath.
I get it. I probably would have made the same decision given the lacking evidence, but what I hate is that I’m pretty sure she’s guilty of something, I’m just not sure what. It’s tough. And I hate that she’s penalized for the way she partied because maybe that’s just the crazy way she grieves, or whatever. It’s tough. It really is.