<p>Should we not have better laws to protect the juveniles from rolling in the gutter at a such a young age?</p>
<p>The story was posted by Charisse Van Horn - Tampa Crime Examiner</p>
<p>Charisse Van Horn is a 15-year resident of Tampa, Florida. She is a successful freelance writer who volunteers her time for causes such as homelessness and the rehabilitation of those who’ve been incarcerated.</p>
<p>I haven’t read much of this thread but I wanted to speak up in defense of juries. As an appellate lawyer handling 5 or 6 felony appeals a year I have had cause to review the transcripts of jury selections in dozens of cases. What I have seen there corresponds to my personal experience: jurors are, on the whole, older, better educated, and more likely to be either currently working at or retired from responsible jobs - supervisors, technicians, etc. - than the general public. I can’t think of a single unemployed, uneducated, or stupid person (based on their responses to questions asked of them during jury selection) on a single panel I reviewed who was selected to serve on a jury.</p>
<p>I didn’t follow this trial, but given the furor since the verdict I looked at it a little and from what I can see there was very little evidence that the defendant was guilty of murder. Basically - she is clearly mentally unbalanced (how many imaginary friends and associates - 10?) and she could have killed her daughter. But her daughter could have died in an accident, or at the hand of another. Given the defendant’s mental state, her conduct after the girl was last seen is poor evidence of anything. I find it remarkable that the prosecutors thought they had proof of her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on the actual evidence in the case.</p>
<p>What concerns me is the smear tactic implicit in the prosecution’s theory of the case - that the defendant killed her daughter so that she could “party.” That theme - “bad girls” are capable of anything - resonates with the Amanda Knox case in Italy (about which I also know little, other than that her trial seemed to be a lot about her sex life and not so much about evidence.) It used to be rape victims who were “tried” - now it’s young women whose sex lives don’t measure up to the moral standards of the community.</p>
<p>What concerns me even more is the hysteria whipped up by the loathsome Nancy Grace - she of Duke Lacrosse infamy (and cowardice.) And it’s sad that people whose knowledge about something as serious as a murder trial comes from the selective reporting of N. Grace and her ilk would sneer at the conscientious citizens who sat through the trial and came to what appears to be a reasoned and responsible verdict.</p>
<p>I agree, Kluge. However, stripping the sensationalism from all of this, Ms Casey Anthony was no prize daughter or mother. From the get go, I did not feel the prosecution had much of a case. But I was surprised that someone could get off for not reporting a child missing for so long. I felt that that could have been parlayed into some child abuse/neglect conviction. Also, though all circumstantial, as others in this forum have said, it seemed pretty reasonable that CA had something to do with what happened and with the body disposal. </p>
<p>But then I was not there when the facts were presented in court.</p>
<p>thank you for supporting the jury kluge! i too hate the nancy grace type stridency of the media. i am surprised though that they didnt come back with a lesser charge, but that doesnt mean i disagree with their right to make the decision they did, based on what THEY believed… i wasnt there, they were… they did their job as they were asked to do.</p>
<p>Let’s see. One juror quit her job after the verdict and fled the state in fear of retribution. One woman in Okla who resembled Casey had some nut case ram her vehicle repeatedly to “save the children” from her.</p>
<p>The Nancy Grace sensationalism and stunning lack of appreciation for the job of being a juror has turned a civic duty and a cornerstone of our constitutional criminal system into a dangerous and disturbing trap when the jury does not bring bact the popular verdict. </p>
<p>While Casey might have killed Caylee, these sensationalists and second guessers are killing a system that makes us nearly unique in the world. Go read up on criminal procedures in other countries. Then imagine that you are falsely acused in the US and in those other countries. IMO–you will see the “justice” of our system even if on ocassion a guilty person gets acquitted.</p>
<p>I agree that our system of justice is the best one there is. And sure, once in a while, a guilty person goes free or an innocent person is locked up. But I still think it is the best system. </p>
<p>I think this case may have turned out differently (we don’t know of course) if the charges brought were lesser. I think it was a tough case to prove for murder given the evidence that left some room for some doubt, even though the jurors seem to think Casey wasn’t entirely innocent either. I think it can be hard to prove a murder when the body didn’t have enough evidence and then in this case was all compounded by the fact that the child was not reported missing (or dead) for so long . It just will make criminals realize that they better do a very good job of hiding such evidence far far away.</p>
<p>I find the prosecution’s case quite plausible but I understand that they could not prove it all beyond a reasonable doubt. But I still believe there is a good chance it was true. But it is important that we don’t convict if there is some doubt. I definitely don’t believe the defense’s version!</p>
<p>While our justice system may be one of the best in the world, there is room for improvement. Discussing that and debating that and our right to do so is also a cornerstone of our constitution.</p>
<p>I think there may be a case for suing Nancy Grace. I’m surprised someone has not gone after those deep pockets. It is innocent until proven guilty. </p>
<p>I agree, Hop Scout. Though it doesn’t matter what I think, I will tell you that I don’t think she deliberately killed the girl, but she very likely accidently killed her out of the same carelessness that she lives her life in every other way. </p>
<p>I think she and everyone else, except the defense attorneys would have been better served if she were jailed for some years. And if those defense attorneys are stuck with her for a while after she is out, I have a feeling they might join the rest of the crowd.</p>
<p>I can’t disagree with you. I believed she had commited murder for a long time, but when the trial began that doubt began to build. I didn’t watch enough of the trial or know enough to say where the prosecutor went wrong or what the defense did right, etc. But I do think the jury did the right thing-- the evidence of murder by Casey Anthony was not there.</p>
<p>^I totally disagree. There was a lot of evidence pointing to Casey as the only one who may have murdered her daughter, even by accident. Even the jurors had a visceral reaction she was guilty in some way. Their interpretation of reasonable doubt for Murder 1 gave them their verdict. Another jury may have seen things different, interpreted it different, may have different group dynamics. The verdict stands and it has to be respected, but don’t think for a minute that she is innocent. Just like I don’t think OJ is innocent.</p>
<p>What we believe does not matter. She was innocent until proven guilty and was not proven guilty and will not be in a court of law. The reality of the situation is a whole other thing, but to keep our legal system relevant, we need to go by the rules. </p>
<p>Let’s just say if out of the blue, it does turn out that someone did abduct Caylee and do this? Not likely, but possible. If that should happen, what Nancy Grace and many others who are calling for her head on a stick are clearly village fools. The problem is that it is possible. </p>
<p>The publicity that this case got is what is causing the hysteria about the verdict. There are many crazy verdicts, in both directions on the books but the press did not focus on them. What this publicity has done to the Anthony family is sad. I don’t know how they get through each day.</p>
<p>Of course we have to go by the rules and the court finding. Those are legal findings. That doesn’t mean that when there is such a public trial, people are not going to form their own beliefs about the REALITY of the person’s innocence (not the legal innocence). Even the jurors themselves have opined they think Casey had something to do with it and/or have opined that they think George did. What can be proven in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt is not the same as what may have happened in reality. Many believe that a lot of the evidence points to Casey. They respect that the jury could not find her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and felt they needed more proof to be certain, even though many have thoughts that she was indeed involved.</p>
<p>^^ Political elections are a popularity vote, All-Star games in professional sports are a popularity vote, BCS football is a popularity vote-- are you saying guilty or innocent should become a popularity vote!!!</p>
<p>soozievt, not completely targeted at you although I’m kind of reading that in the above post. Others have implied it as well…</p>
<p>No, of course a court or criminal case is not a popularity vote! It is a legal vote by a jury. The jury has spoken. Many respect the law and even if they didn’t see the case the same way, they respect the jury’s findings. </p>
<p>However, this was a very public case and even on TV and so it is understandable that people have formed opinions about the case, just like they did with OJ. And like I said, even the jurors themselves have spoken since the case ended and have opined that they think Casey may likely have been involved but they were unable to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. </p>
<p>None of us knows what happened to Caylee. But with so much about the case in the news, people form opinions about it. I think it is known that there are many people who believe that Casey was involved in Caylee’s death in some capacity. It has nothing to do with popularity but about forming opinions about what one has read or watched. None of us gets to “vote,” except the jurors.</p>