Marshall in the Middle

Tuesday, July 5, 2011

Casey Anthony Murdered Her Daughter

For the last several months, I have purposely avoided the Casey Anthony trial because from the beginning it seemed way over- examined.   A judicial circus.   I don't like public spectacle because after all  there are  murders every day and they don't get the entire world's attention.   Usually it's a waste of time and an excercise  in frustration, and the whole thing reminded me of the OJ Simpson case.  But there I was on Saturday and Sunday, glued to my television watching the prosecution and defense close their case.   I was wrapped up and swallowed whole by the hyperbole just like everybody else.  I wish I had stuck to my guns and ignored the whole stupid thing.  This is what I get....  one more loss in confidence in our government's ability  to govern.  This time it's not the legislative or the executive, it's our warped system of justice.

So there I was., like most people,  examining Casey Anthony and evaluating her reaction to the testimony.   I was considering how it seemed like a rock solid case against her.  She killed her daughter and the fact that she lied about her location seemed like a very obvious clue.  String her up !  The evidence, to me, was that compelling. 

Today the news hit like a ton of bricks. "not guilty"., and not even a lesser charge... totally "not guilty".  What ?  How could they have come to such a conclusion:?    I know we're going to hear from the talking heads on the networks that the prosecution didn't have a strong case.  That most of the evidence was circumstantial.  That there was still "reasonable doubt" in the minds of the jury.   But, really..... short of having her fingerprints on Casey's neck or a video of her taping the duct tape to her face, I don't see what else could have been shown to prove her guilt.  What do juries expect these days to prove to them guilt of the accused,  "beyond reasonable doubt"?     

To the Jury I submit; 

1)  Casey Anthony's daughter was missing for 30 days and she did not notify the authorities, at all... ever, it had to be brought to the attention of the authorities by her worried mother, the child's grandmother.
2)  Casey Anthony lied about her daughter's whereabouts at first,  by blaming her absence on a person that does not even exist.
3)  The defense's alternate theory had her father covering up an accidental drowning by making it look like a murder.....?
4)  She borrowed the neighbors shovel around the time Casey is believed to have been missing.
5)  The duct tape was connected to her household.
6)  Her mother called 911 mentioning that her daughter's car smelled "like death".
7)  The body was found blocks from her house with nothing but items originating from the Anthony household.
8)  There are bountiful videos of Casey Anthony partying, and celebrating while her daughter was still missing.  She had a tatoo put on her arm stating "Bella Vita", "Happy Life". 
9)  The physical evidence did connect the deceased child to Casey's car trunk. 

There is a point in meteing out justice where we have to allow for common sense to guide us in how we draw conclusions.  The only logical conclusion as to why a person would lie about the location of someone else who was in their care,  is that the person is hiding something.   This is doubly true if the accused lied for over a month and never had an alternate story with any veracity.  What happened to the missing person here?   Her body was found.  She was found dead.  How ever she  died,  the person who lied is responsble.  That's "beyond reasonable doubt". 

The jury's decision to  acquit this murderer is a travesty of justice and does us all a disservice.  I should imagine that any person out there who entertains the idea of murdering another human being must feel emboldened to do so now.   All that has to be done is that  you cover your tracks well enough and reduce everything around the case to being "circumstantial"  in the eyes of an exhausted, dim-witted jury. 

I listened to a radio talk show host talk about how this was an acceptable verdict because the jury was "defending the constitution".  No sir, a jury is required to mete out justice.  At least it should be, right?   The innocent victims of our society have been reduced to courtroom antics, judicial jousting in the name of "defending the Constitution".  I don't think the framers of our constitution were striving for a society where murderers could go free because the process of convicting them became so convoluted.   When this process takes precedence over what is "right" and "fair" and "logical", then we have all lost sight of justice in the name of the very process of justice.  This jury, today did great damage in my mind, to the idea that I live in a fair society where justice is served.  This was not justice.  This was a travesty. 



In My Humble Opinion.

Chuck Marshall
Post a Comment