From what's sure to be only one of hundreds of "how did this happen" articles...
The government failed to establish how 2-year-old Caylee Anthony died and they couldn't find her mother's DNA on the duct tape they said was used to suffocate her. There was conflicting testimony on whether the putrid smell inside the family's car was a decomposing body or simply trash, and it was never quite clear why chloroform was so important.
Now, as I said below, I haven't been following the coverage of the trial...but were any of the media pointing this out before the verdict? Because that stuff seems pretty important, especially not being able to establish cause of death. I'd venture to say there's no way to get a murder verdict without that.
Like I said before...if they were so anxious to spin the "guilty, guilty, guilty" narrative that they didn't report that, then maybe it's the reporters you should be mad at for not doing their damn jobs (not to mention the prosecutors who tried a weak case they should have pled).
Oh, well. On to the next outrage.
6 comments:
I whole heartily agree with you.I had to quit watching some time ago due to the descrepencies. The victim "Caylee Marie" was done an injustice. So much for our judicial system. I could rant and rave on that forever. That baby is now an angel away from harm.
In this case, the judicial system worked correctly: even though it seems obvious that Casey Anthony killed her daughter, there is no actual proof that she did so. The jury - correctly - recognized that the prosecutor couldn't even prove that Caylee had been murdered, let alone prove that her mother did it.
Jeff Ashton should have kept working the case instead of rushing into a trial without any actual evidence.
Here in Seattle, local reporter Eli Sanders has been sitting in on and reporting daily on a rape/murder trial. He's made it clear the lengths the court went to so that the jury was never given the outside knowledge the rest of had against Isaiah Kalebu so that he would have the presumption of innocence. Fortunately, he was convicted, but I was impressed with how far the court was willing to go to make sure he wasn't perceived in a prejudicial light.
Dammit, I meant "NON-prejudicial light".
I think you had it right the first time.
Heh, generally I'd agree. But man, when the jurors got to hear about all the things they hadn't been told in an effort to give Kalebu a fair trial, they were doubly pleased they convicted him. Eli's accounting of the trial was gut wrenching for readers; I can't imagine what it was like in the courtroom. But then, as I said, we knew things the jury didn't.
Post a Comment