The evidence is far from conclusive on her guilt. The evidence clearly does prove that Casey Anthony: (i) is a liar, (2) a despicable human being; (3) illegally and immorally transported the body of her dead daughter in her car and illegally and immorally disposed of it; (4) lied and covered up her daughter's death; and, (5) had no remorse or concern for the death of her daughter. This is all sensational but circumstantial. It is the type of evidence [because it is circumstantial, not because it is heinous (even though it is)] one reads about in books where a defendant is wrongfully accused. I forget the book, but think To Kill a Mockingbird was such a book. (I am not sure of this.)
I am not saying that Casey Anthony is wrongfully accused. That is not the relevant inquiry from a legal stand point. The relevant inquiry is whether the prosecution met its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey Anthony killed her daughter. All the evidence, as morally and psychologically compelling as it is, does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey Anthony killed her daughter. It proves a lot of thing which indite Casey Anthony as a person, including her morals, mental health, intelligence, compassion and love for her daughter, etc.
A defendant is allowed to present an alternate theory of the crime. That is what Jose Baez is going to do, and that is why he gave the opening he did. He wanted to give the jury a hint of that alternate theory so Casey Anthony wouldn't be convicted in the minds of the jury before closing argument.
At closing argument, the defense attorney will base his defense on the law, as applied to the evidence admitted at trial which bears directly on proof of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. More to the point, he will point out the law, and the lack of evidence which was offered by the prosecution which proves that Casey Anthony killed her daughter, and proves it beyond a reasonable doubt.
He is going to get up and claim that all the evidence presented does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey Anthony killed her daughter. It proves Casey Anthony transported the dead body of her daughter in her car, disposed of the body, lied about it to investigators, did not show remorse about the death of her daughter, etc. One explanation could be is that Casey Anthony is a sexual abuse survivor. Another is that she is a psychopath, Another is that she is a killer. The reason does not matter in a Court of Law. It matters to us as caring human beings, but not in a Court of Law. Casey Anthony does not need to prove the reason. The prosecution has to prove that Casey Anthony behaved in this manner because she killed her daughter. The prosecution can not use this evidence to prove that she killed her daughter, because that is "bootstrapping."
All that evidence is also consistent with an alternate theory of the case, which is that of an accidental drowning or other cause of death (other than Casey Anthony's killing her daughter), but then, when confronted with the death of her daughter, behaved in an incomprehensible manner, immoral manner, dishonest manner, etc (as evidenced by her behavior subsequent to the death). Casey Anthony does not have to prove this alternate theory. The prosecution has to disprove it, and disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
That is the danger of proving a case by circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence can be very damming, and often defendants are convicted on it alone. That is the main reason many innocent defendants are wrongfully convicted. Circumstantial evidence is very damning until the truth actually become known.
None of the prosecution's evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey Anthony killed her daughter, and Casey Anthony does not need to take the stand to prove her alternate theory, and will probably not take the stand.
You will see the defense case come together in closing arguments, and you will see Jose Baez do an excellent job. Casey Anthony may well be acquitted. She may have been proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, of being a despicable human being, and perhaps guilty of crimes like improper disposal of a corpse, lying to police, etc. But she will not be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of killing her daughter. Whether the jury will convict her depends on their ability to follow the law, or whether the jury will ignore the law and convict her on the basis of being who and what she is (a despicable lying human being.)
Update: Written at the moment when the defense is in the middle of closing argument and recessed for lunch. There is much speculation as to the reason for the delay in resuming, and some of the commentary touched on the very issue I raised two hours in an e-mail to my friend. Here is the issue:
The Judge ruled that there could be no discussion in closing arguments[by the defense, prosecutionexplaining Casey's bizarre behaviour and lies after Kaylee had "gone missing" since there was no evidence at trial of such abuse.
But didn't the prosecution "open the door" when it asked Casey's father whether he ever abused his daughter? Since a jury is free to believe, in whole or in part, or disbelieve in totality any witness, can't they disbelieve his denial and thus believe there was abuse? Even more compelling, there was unrelated but contradictory evidence and testimony by the father and alleged mistress as to whether the father had had an affair (while Kaylee was missing) and therefore, isn't his credibility an issue for the jury to decide? And if they find him less then credible on one issue, can't they believe him to be less than credible on all other issues?
So isn't this error by the Judge to exclude this issue from closing arguments, as a strictly legal point? Is it reversible error?
I wrote my analysis towards the beginning of the trial, when everyone wanted to condemn Casey Anthony and her attorney. I received substantial criticism. If you don't know by now, she was found not guilty, and in a very short period of time. I always maintained that there was insufficient evidence to prove that she was guilty of murder. My only question was whether the jury would follow the law or succumb to the psychological passion. The quick not guilty verdict was clear evidence that my analysis was correct. By the way, I do believe she was guilty, I just don't believe that the prosecution proved it beyond a reasonable doubt.
We are the people who have the courage to stand up to the wrong of our country and make it right!
I continue to get hits on this page from all over the world. As long as I do, I will keep this page up, but I think this story is and should be over. Yet, the media keeps covering this story. She was acquitted over a week ago, and already released. Yet the analysis continues. My analysis seems to have been correct, except possibly for one point. The issue is, was there method to the madness of the defense counsel's strategy, or just lucky madness? Either way, they jury saw what I saw which was that they needed to keep an open mind as the evidence, as damning as it was, did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey Anthony committed any specific crime.
Now, there is the issue of whether the state legislatures should enact "Caylee's law (I am not sure of the spelling) which, might, depending on the state and what is enacted, require, among other things, a parent to report a missing or deceased child within a required period of time, for example, a death of a child, within one hour. Once again, a law which seems to legislate common sense and seem to have the best of intentions has its devil in the details. Like the drug sentencing guidelines, the implementation of such a law may create more harm than the very few "Casey Anthony" cases that occur in this world.
For example, will we imprison a grieving parent, for a felony, for failing to report the death of their child within an hour, regardless of the circumstances? What if the parent is out of their mind with grief and is crying, praying, and/or notifying loved ones? What if there is not issue of the parent's conduct, such as when the death was long overdue to a disease such as cancer and was expected and witnessed by others?
We are so obsessed with one case when, every day, thousands (if not more) children are abused, neglected, and every year, hundreds, if not thousands, if nameless children die of neglect and abuse, at the hands of parents, foster parents, third parties, etc., with no press coverage and often no police intervention whatsoever. Are we going to over react to one case, which has already received an inordinate amount of media attention, when every minute of every day, children throughout the world are dying needlessly from starvation, disease, etc?
Link Back to Main Page of My Blog
http://usa-china-international.blogspot.com/ http://usa-china-international.blogspot.com/http://usa-china-international.blogspot.com/ http://usa-china-international.blogspot.com/ http://usa-china-international.blogspot.com/ http://usa-china-international.blogspot.com/
Casey Anthony Casey Anthony who people hate