Advertisement weblogs Science Becoming Religion

Anthony Jury Reached Correct Verdict


The Casey Anthony jury reached the correct verdict. The question put to the jury wasn't did Casey Anthony kill her daughter Caylee Anthony, but did she deliberately carry out a plan to murder Caylee by suffocating her with duct tape.

The jury didn't buy the prosecutor's claim of premeditated murder and its easy to understand why they might have rejected it. When I first heard of what the prosecution was attempting to do I thought they had a difficult, if not impossible, task before them.

I could believe that Casey got frustrated because she couldn't get her daughter to shut up and covered Caylee's mouth with duct tape to keep her quiet rather than to kill her. Casey might have positioned the tape carelessly or the child might have had a stopped nose with the end result that Caylee was unable to breathe and died. I have difficulty accepting the claim that Casey is mentally capable of planning to kill her daughter by using duct tape to suffocate her.

Casey was unable to accept responsibility for her action and tried to cover it up. Perhaps she had difficulty admitting to herself what she had done.

American prosecutors suffer from a "disease" which causes them to try to present every wrongful death as premeditated murder. Perhaps prosecutors feel they get better publicity if they convict an evil killer then if they convict someone for doing something stupid.

I don't know if Casey Anthony caused her daughter's death or not, but it would be unfortunate if she will go unpunished for the death because prosecutors made the mistake of trying to turn a tragedy into something sinister.


mom_of_three 3 years, 7 months ago

the jury could have chosen a lesser charge, (and they had that ability), but they didn't.

Give her time, she will back in front of a judge. She stole from friends and family, she is a compulsive liar. She will do something really dumb, break the law and the book will be thrown at her.

Liberty275 3 years, 7 months ago

It's a sick country that uses one trial as a proxy for another so that the book can be thrown at someone because they were found innocent in the earlier case.

As for the lesser charge, I am satisfied the jurors were not convinced beyond the shadow of a doubt that the mother was guilty even to that extent..

Bob Forer 3 years, 7 months ago

Didn't follow the case very closely, but your explanation surely seems plausible. Would not be the first time that a prosecutor lost a case due to overreaching.

Cade Butler 3 years, 7 months ago

The jury was instructed on the lesser included offense of 2nd degree murder.

Covering a child's mouth/nose with duct tape and leaving it there for the amount of time necessary to kill is more than sufficient to sustain a murder-2 conviction (actually, probably enough for murder-1). After all, all that must be proven is that the act (putting duct tape over her mouth/nose) is something a "person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another." "Another" being a young child.

Liberty275 3 years, 7 months ago

It wasn't proven that I saw that the mother put duct tape over both the child's mouth and nose, nor whether the child was alive when the duct tape was used (it could have been used on plastic used to wrap the dead child).

"After all, all that must be proven is that the act"

Your false premise voids your argument.

Personally, I think the mother accidentally killed the child in a selfish and wreckless act of silencing her crying. That is abhorrent. The death of any born child is a tragedy; when the child is killed it is worse still. When the child is killed by it's mother, it is either profoundly tragic or atrocious depending on the circumstance.

Anyway, carry on. Thanks for the info, but please rethink your premise.

Cade Butler 3 years, 6 months ago

"After all, all that must be proven is that the act" - you're right...that's not exactly what I intended to say. I'm not really trying to make an argument convincing you of my point of view, though, but rather simply state a fact and then give my own opinion to which we very well may disagree. Let me try to do a better job explaining.

The fact is: The jury was instructed on 2nd degree murder. You don't need to prove the actual cause of death to prove 2nd degree murder (or 1st degree murder). On a side note, you don't even have to find the body to prove murder. You can prove a murder with motive, opportunity, circumstantial evidence of the killing, and circumstantial evidence showing consciousness of guilt. For example, there are many cases of murder convictions where the victim's body has been burned/charred to such an extent that there is no way to actually know how that person was killed. Motive, opportunity, and circumstantial evidence can still support convictions in those cases.

The prosecution should have still sought to prove their alleged exact cause of death (chloroform followed by duct tape), but then stressed to the jury that they don't need to know the exact cause of death. All that they need to believe is that some criminal act of Casey's was responsible for Caylee's death, and that her criminal act was "dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life."

Now my opinion: The lack of opportunity for anyone else but Casey to commit the crime, the circumstantial evidence tying her to caylee's death, and the evidence of her consciousness of guilt all show beyond a reasonable doubt that she murdered Caylee. IMO, she should've been found guilty of 2nd degree murder.

Cade Butler 3 years, 6 months ago

From the jury instructions: "WHEN THERE ARE LESSER INCLUDED CRIMES

In considering the evidence, you should consider the possibility that although the evidence may not convince you that the defendant committed the main crimes of which she is accused, there may be evidence that she committed other acts that would constitute a lesser included crime.

Therefore, if you decide that the main accusation has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, you will next need to decide if the defendant is guilty of any lesser included crime. The lesser crimes indicated in the definition of First Degree Murder are: Second Degree Murder, Manslaughter or

Third Degree Felony Murder. The lesser crime indicated in the definition of Aggravated Child Abuse is Child Abuse.


§ 782.04(2), Fla. Stat."

It goes on to give the specific instructions on 2nd degree murder, which were read to the jury in court.

beatrice 3 years, 7 months ago

Who cares? You still haven't shown us your birth certificate. Why not? What are you trying to hide? Honestly, do we really care what an illegal alien thinks of this case?

Liberty275 3 years, 7 months ago

The constitutionally mandated jury of her peers said "not guilty". That makes her not guilty. This is a nation of law, not retaliation. Given what I've see, the prosecutors could have gotten a conviction on manslaughter because that's what they could prove.

I can understand disagreement with the verdict, and I can understand anger at the jury, but you cannot call yourself an American and seriously attempt to undermine the validity of the verdict.

OTOH, this place is full of apes that allow their emotions to cloud their judgment regarding seemingly every subject.

independant1 3 years, 7 months ago

Only know the facts from the constant media coverage. Have to agree the DA overprosecuted a case where cause and manner of death was unknown. If those 12 people on the jury say 'not guilty' then I have to go with their opinion as fair.

If DA had gone for lesser charges like child neglect resulting in death it would've been a slam dunk guilty verdict.

Can't wait for the TV special/books/movie. Casey Anthony needs a good agent.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.