I rarely, if ever, side with the media. Generally, I consider them to be more interested in ratings, and sensationalism than in the truth. Or sometimes, I strongly suspect them of not even being interested in the truth: case in point, Anderson Cooper and his 36 degree view of the recent Egyptian political overhaul.
However, the case of Casey Anthony does have me siding with most of the reporters and anchors on the telly. Everyone is a little shocked, and horrified at the inaction of the jury. What should have been evaluation of reasonable doubt instead became mockery of justice and the willing suspension of disbelief. Instead of trying the facts of the case, (which could only lead to at least Casey being liable in some form for her daughter’s death), they tried the prosecution, and their presentation of the case. In a world where CSI, Criminal Minds, and Law & Order have the cases sewed shut in 57 minutes minus commercials, the jury wanted the television-case, the one beyond all doubt—not just reasonable doubt.
From all appearances, the jury was convinced early on of doubts, rather than waiting to hear the whole story. Jose Baez flung as much nonsense as he could against the wall, and prayed to whatever god he believes in that some would stick. It seems to have worked.
“But the prosecution didn’t give the jury a coffin-nailed-shut-case!” Arguably, they shouldn’t have to. The prosecution’s job is not to prove the case past all doubt—just beyond reasonable doubt.
For instance, the time stamps on Cindy Anthony’s work PC, and the searches for chloroform on Casey’s computer should have been solid enough for premeditation to be proven. “But, it’s possible…” Yes. It is possible. It’s within the realm of physically being able to happen that someone other than Casey was on the computer. By in the realm of possible, I mean no aliens, or paranormal activity.
But probable? No. As a former IT worker for several companies, I am convinced that Casey Anthony did those searches. Computers don’t lie, but people do. Cindy lied, and there was not a shred of proof for her “dog-ate-the-plants” story. Additionally, the idea of someone using Cindy’s work PC to cover for her is absurd. She had no motive to suddenly run home, and she had no reason to cover it up as Caylee was still alive and well at the time, and she only had something to lose by having someone cover for her at work. Ask yourself, is it reasonable to conclude that a good worker in the health industry suddenly got up in the middle of her work day, had someone else work for her (with her login, which would have been bad had she been caught), run home, make some very dicey internet searches, run back and continue working? Is it possible? Possible, yes. But not reasonable. Not even close to reasonable. In fact, it’s asinine.
Ultimately, for the jury’s acquittal to stick, they had to go beyond reasonable. They had to make the unreasonable as normal. They had to make everyone in the case act against what we all hold as reasonable behavior. It’s the only way “not guilty” could work in their minds.
Their actions now make it reasonable for a mother who’s just lost her child to go party. They made it reasonable to hide the loss of a child, and cover it up. They made it reasonable to groundlessly hurl sexual molestation charges like a drive-by shooter: indiscriminate and unjustified. Yet they justified Casey’s endless lies as normal, reasonable behavior for someone who supposedly just wanted her daughter back. They justified groundless accusations and idiotic theories from a second-rate lawyer as “reasonable” and logical.
They disregarded duct tape over the mouth of a child as reasonable for someone who had been in a tragic accident.
They justified strong evidence of a body in the trunk as nothing more than the presence of trash, and in so doing made Caylee Anthony just that: a piece of trash, a piece of litter, left in a swamp because her mommy thought it was reasonable to be free of responsibility.
I will stand with Marcia Clark, the prosecutor for the infamous O.J. Simpson trial. As with most of the nation, she is shocked and outraged at the jury's ineptness.
I like her closing thought from her article on The Daily Beast: “…because I did follow this case, and I have to be honest: If I’d been in that jury room, the vote would’ve been 11 to 1. Forever.”
She speaks for the rest of us, who would have stayed until thrown out with a hung jury. I could easily live with hanging a jury—because I don’t reasonably believe there’s another jury out there that would let her go free.
