To all Freepers out there expressing their opinions about the Anthony case:
You are entitled to your opinion, just don't expect it to carry much weight because it is not a fully informed opinion.
I have heard a lot of Freepers comment on this case, but I have yet to hear ANYONE make that ridiculous claim!
I would remind you she was not on trial for being a "poor mother" but rather for a charge of capital murder. For a case like this a jury is empaneled and charged with evaluating the validity of the charge by scrutinizing evidence presented by both the State and defense. If the jury is not convinced after seeing such facts as presented you may conclude that the State's case was weak or the defense was overwhelmingly convincing. (I didn't think all that much of the defense's arguments...)
The sensational acquittal of Casey Anthony sparked outrage across the U.S. as angry spectators compared the trial’s outcome to the infamous verdict in the OJ Simpson case.
I doubt this case was anything like the O.J. (mis)trial because that debacle was caused by racial animus from "AA" jury members.
The good news is that "spectators" do not get a say in a trial outcomes based on opinions formed after reading sensationalized newspaper accounts. The Constitution grants you a trial by a jury of your peers. It grants the prosecution one bite at the apple while you can generate a string of appeals all the way to the Supreme Court. It also requires the State to PROVE your guilt beyond reasonable doubt. You, however, are not required to prove your innocence. This is a far more fair system then one based on the "Napoleonic Code" (most European legal systems) under which the accused stand guilty and the burden of proof of innocence is laid upon them. Our system of jurisprudence is based upon English Common Law, one of the greatest achievements of the human mind.
Do I think her guilty? Maybe, she was in proximity to the victim. But the state did not present ANY physical evidence linking her to the crime. No fingerprints, no matching plastic bags , no partially used roll of duct tape, they did not even present a circumstantial case. Their case appeared to me to be based on elimination of possible suspects. If it wasn't father, mother, baby sitter, &c, &c, it HAD to be Casey because there was no one else left. That ignores the 330,000,000 inhabitants that weren't looked at. You can not prove a negative premise and that IMHO appears what the DA tried to get past the jury.
Regards,
GtG
Whatever we say, the miscarriage of justice is complete and irreversible.
So no matter what we say, if the murderer is free, then justice has been denied forever.
Take comfort in that if you like.
And if you think we DON’T have the right to comment, or that we are not informed about what evidence has been presented, you couldn’t be more wrong.
Anyone who deems Casey to be a “good mother” needs their head examined. Case closed.
And this guy represents “the jury.” (an alternate)
You can go on whistling through the fog about the good judgement of the jury, and how we must respect their decisions.
Anyone who respects the decision that Casey was a “good mother” is an idiot.
So let me ask you, do you think Casey was a good mother?