”
Do you think the jury reached the right verdict in the Casey
Anthony murder case?
”
THIS WEEK’S QUESTION:
“Do you think the jury reached the right verdict in the Casey Anthony murder case?” Yes: 8 No: 2
-
Karen Anderson: “Perhaps. Their rigid requirements for evidence are far greater than those for a civil trial. It certainly appeared from the mother’s behavior that she was guilty. A shocking verdict after the trial by media.”
-
Dave Appling: “Yes. It was the only possible verdict: the prosecution failed to meet its burden. Motive, bizarre behavior, a dysfunctional family, and a ‘bella vita’ tat (!) are not proof. Perhaps we need a verdict option like Scotland’s ‘not proven,’ which acquits for lack of evidence but doesn’t proclaim innocence.”
-
Bert Berson: “No. I think she did it.”
-
Chris Bryant: “They reached the decision they did based on evidence and testimony presented regardless of what was presented in the media. When the medical examiner can’t even determine if there was a murder, how can you convict anyone?”
-
Bob Chidester: “Yes. The prosecution failed to prove its case. Too bad he didn’t decide to retire before this trial began.”
-
David Cohen: “Yes, because the prosecution focused on emotion and speculation, not facts. Casey Anthony is hardly a sympathetic character, but as Edward R. Murrow said about Joe McCarthy, ‘we must remember that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends on evidence and the rule of law.’ Perhaps the jury felt that the evidence wasn’t there.”
-
Julian Mancias: “Yes. ‘Beyond a reasonable doubt’ is a tough nut to crack when the only evidence available is circumstantial.”
-
Henry Miller: “Yes. As distasteful as it may seem, the jury must base their decision on the case presented by the prosecutor. But, apparently, they believed the case presented was insufficient for a conviction. Remember, a ‘Not Guilty’ verdict is not the same as an ‘Innocent’ verdict.”
-
Lisa Pampuch: “Yes, although I have no idea whether or not Anthony intentionally or accidentally killed her daughter. This country’s Founding Fathers wisely required evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to convict someone of a crime; the ‘not guilty’ verdict means that the prosecution did not meet that important constitutional standard.”
-
Jeff Smith: “No. What a bunch of brain-dead, brain-washed, kool-aid-drinking jurors to come up with that verdict. They must be the only ones in the world who actually believe she is innocent. This concept of ‘reasonable doubt’ is clearly distorted and abused by defense attorneys, and unfortunately this jury played right into their hands. The jurors are supposed to think for themselves and determine the truth based on all the evidence presented and not listen to some quack tell them what they must think and do.” Vote in
