When I first heard about the Casey Anthony case, without reading anything beyond the fact that a mother had lost a child and remorselessly lied about it for a month. My immediate reaction was that she was guilty. Guilty. Burn in hell. Guilty.
Then, when the verdict appeared and the social networking backlash inevitably arose, I bothered to learn the details of what she was accused of and what she was subsequently found guilty and not guilty of.
After deliberating for more than 10 hours, a jury of seven women and five men found Casey Anthony not guilty Tuesday of first-degree murder in the 2008 death of her 2-year-old daughter Caylee. Anthony was also found not guilty of aggravated child abuse and aggravated manslaughter. She was found guilty of four lesser charges of providing false information to a law enforcement officer. ~ CBS NewsApparently, the prosecution had not been watching CSI when they came up with the list of charges and then utterly failed to produce any evidence to prove them. It seems, also that the prosecution knew this, considering her closing argument, where she gave the jury their verdict for them:
"There's nothing that's wrong with Casey Anthony that can't be explained in two words: pathological liar."And that is all the jury could find her guilty on because that is the only thing that was proven beyond a doubt.
The social media world has summoned up Dexter Morgan to provide us with some justice. Presumably this is so that Dexter can dig up enough evidence to actually prove that she murdered her child, as per his Code.
I don't know much about legal stuffs, but even I could see the gaping holes in the prosecutions argument. Did the defense even have to say anything? Turns out more knowledgeable people agree with me.
"The jury very reasonably had a doubt," he said. "The prosecution over-tried the case, they introduced absurd evidence...Even had there been a conviction, probably would have been reversed on appeal, based on the junk science." Reichs said it was "fringe science." ~ Piers Morgan Tonight (CNN)
This morning, I got to reading about the case of Constable Garrett Styles, whose death was caused by a 15 year old in a run away van. The boy, who cannot be named under the Young Offenders Act, is being charged with first degree murder. After the failure of the Anthony case, reading that sent up a red flag for me and I had to look up the definition for clarification.
"The aggravating factors that distinguish first degree murder from second degree are first degree murder requires a specific intent to kill and premeditation and deliberation." ~Murder, WikipediaBecause you see...
"After finding the van did not belong to the driver, Styles reached inside for the keys when the driver accelerated, police said. He was dragged 300 metres before the van lost control and flipped, pinning him underneath." ~ The Toronto Star...does not sound like intent to kill. It sounds like a 15 year old kid who's fight or flight instincts kicked in, and, unfortunately, the officer literally got dragged along and later died because of it.
The difference here though, is that the victim in the first case, Caylee Anthony, is a little girl, and while our hearts go out to her, I'm not sure how much justice she will end up getting, especially if those movie deals for her mom come through. Meanwhile, Constable Styles is an officer who died in the line of duty and whose funeral was attended by more than 7,000 officers, and 2,000 onlookers.
If a first degree murder charge remains for this kid, I get the feeling that it's going to stick. Killing a police officer generally doesn't go over well among folks in the justice system.
So at the end of the day, we have one potential murderer getting off because the prosecution were idiots, and one manslaughter probably heading to jail under a much worse convinction because he killed a cop.
Justice : 0