The Casey Anthony Trial
I didn't necessarily want to write on this topic, but this trial is frustrating me more and more on a daily basis. Going into the trial I assumed, like most of America still does, that Casey was guilty of murdering her daughter. At this point, the only thing that seems clear to me is that the defense has little or no case. Did Casey do it? I suppose it is likely that she did. Can the Prosecution prove it? It is becoming painfully obvious that they cannot surpass the reasonable doubt expectations of the law. Will they get a conviction? Perhaps. If nothing else, Casey appears to be a bad mother and an unlikeable figure and that may play out well for them. If they get the conviction, will it stand? Not a chance in hell.
First off, if your child turns up missing the cops are going to come ask you some questions. If your response to those questions is to lie repeatedly, you are going to be considered a suspect in the disappearance. The cops can lie all they want and say she wasn't a suspect to justify the fact that they never mirandized her, but that is bogus and any appellate court will see right through it. Then we get to some of the questionable means that the prosecution has used, such as the hair sample tests and the stink can, and they have made a flat out mess of this case. But to me, the most disturbing part of this case is some of the slop the prosecutors have thrown up there hoping for something to stick.
- The chloroform search. Now I am aware that the mothers admission to searching for it doesn't necessarily account for all of the times it was searched for, but unless I am to believe that the mother was plotting to kill the daughter before the daughter beat her to it, than I have to conclude that there is some reasonable explanation for searching the term other than planning a murder.
- The heart shaped sticker residue on the duct tape. This was suspect to me from day 1. Assuming there was a sticker there and similar stickers were found in the child's house, am I to believe that this is significant? Is there any young female child in the country that does not have some heart shaped stickers in her room? Furthermore, while the sticker would imply that the person who killed the child had an emotional attachment to the child, wouldn't any person be able to see the logic in that and use such a sticker in an attempt to frame the mother? Yet from a legal standpoint, why use a cop who claims to have seen it, went back to photograph it, and it wasn't there? More significantly, why use that cop when another cop is prepared to testify that there never was such a sticker or residue?
- The DNA tests of the brother. The attempts to determine if Casey Anthony's brother was the father of her child played right into the hands of the defense. Now, the prosecution is asking the jury to discount her testimony of sexual abuse by the family, when in fact the State had enough suspicion of such to order a DNA test.
- The files in the trunk. The prosecution wants the jury to believe that the chloroform found in the trunk of the car kept insects consistent with a dead body from going into the trunk, but let other insects consistent with household trash come right on in and make themselves at home.
I'm not trying to imply that Casey did not commit this crime. I'm simply trying to put myself in the shoes of a juror, and I keep coming back to one simple question. If the prosecution has faith that the evidence speaks to the guilt of Casey Anthony, then why use these cheap tricks to try and make the case sound better? I don't believe that I as a juror could convict a woman of murder on charges that the prosecution does not even seem to find compelling. What say you?
