People and Politics by Patrick Roberts

Casey Anthony was found not guilty -- get over it folks and respect the jury

Posted on Thursday, July 07, 2011 at 02:03 PM

Larger Text

E-mail

5 Comments

RSS

Archives

Casey Anthony was found innocent -- get used to it.

We can argue the toss all we like but a jury of her peers sat for months and weighed all the evidence and found there was not enough to convict.

This was no OJ Simpson runaway jury, they took their responsibilities very seriously.

They decided a reasonable doubt existed and they found accordingly.

Any judge will tell you that without a body if becomes very difficult to prove a crime.

By the time little Caylee was found there was no definitive evidence of how she died possible.

We now Casey Anthony was a terrible mother, a heartless woman who partied for thirty days after her baby was missing

But did she kill her?

We will never know. An alternative theory was put forward by the defense who stated that the child had drowned in a pool and the family had panicked trying to cover it up.

Sounds very unlikely.

But then I thought and wrote that Dominique Strauss Khan was guilty as hell of rape.

Now it appears he may be guilty of sordid sex with a hooker but no more

Similarly with Casey Anthony, this mad media coverage, this drumbeat against the jury is very unfair on them

They did their job to the best of their ability.

We will have the blow dried , perpetually outraged Nancy Grace and all the other pontificating and fulminating until the next sordid case comes along.

Just remember one thing, they didn't sit in that court room and hear all the evidence or go through the case inch by inch.

Those who did made their decision

They should be praised, not vilified for that.

E-mail

5 comments

Page 1 of 1 pages

kaydog1 | Jul 10, 2011, 05:48 AM EDT

Well, Casey says she did NOT go clubbing and party all night the day she killed her 2yo baby - says she never killed the baby at all. Casey says instead that little Caylee drowned in the pool all on her own, and that Casey was ACTUALLY out partying after having secretly buried her dead baby's body in a swamp by the side of the road a couple of miles from her house. Neither of those explanations are plausable, each serves only to decrease Casey's credibility, so, no Patrick, I am NOT satisfied with the "work" of this jury.

Report abuse

cathleenmurphy | Jul 08, 2011, 02:39 PM EDT

I think it's completely unfair to judge whether or not the jury was fully competent of the legal terms. No one but the 12 of them were there and they had months to decide and, if they didn't understand the terms, then learn them. How can you judge such a committee without being on it? Unless you're an insider, you're relying on what the media is telling you, which isn't all of the information. Unless you sat there for the entirety of the trail, how can you judge the verdict?

Report abuse

howareya | Jul 08, 2011, 12:45 PM EDT

I don't think the jury fully understood the term "circumstantial evidence!" Manslaughter did not carry the same level of proof as murder 1. They should have found her guilty of manslaughter. Everyone knows she did it. But she will answer for it ultimately.

Report abuse

hancock | Jul 08, 2011, 12:27 AM EDT

Got away with murder.

Report abuse

maloney | Jul 07, 2011, 04:00 PM EDT

The American people will punish her for her murder of her child like it or not Patsy. All know, in your opinion Patsy, she was close enough to having been aborted that murder wasn't that big a deal. After all she was just 2 years old. Right Patsy?

Report abuse

Page 1 of 1 pages