# How unjust was the Casey Anthony verdict?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [July 6, 2011, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055 "2011-07-06T16:37:39Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 12
### Author:  [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)
#### Post date: [July 8, 2011, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055/221 "2011-07-08T22:22:17Z")
I’ve been reading this thread since my ill advised post - and I want to thank the different posters for some viewpoints I had not considered before hand - I had a difficult time with the concept of “we all think she was guilty but couldn’t convict” - since, IMHO, the entire point was to prove her guilt or doubt thereof - I see now the difference in part of that - not being entirely sure _what_ she was guilty of, or even that the actual crime itself was the one committed.
at the end of this trial we only know a couple of things for sure - that Caylee was dead and that Casey was a liar - how those two things were intertwined we were not shown to the degree needed for a conviction.
Thank you to the members of this thread that helped to highlight that difference.
---
### Author:  [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)
#### Post date: [July 8, 2011, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055/222 "2011-07-08T22:53:01Z")
> [@David42](#):
>
> I largely agree with you Starving Artist, but in the spirit of fine-tuning the argument you support, a large enough amount of blood is evidence that a person died of exsanguination. It is also part of the body, so to some degree you do have a body, if you view the body as all of what is needed to be alive. (I’m not trying to start a digression of partial bodies and how much or what parts of the body are essential to “having a body.”)
Thank you for a fresh perspective on the blood. Now that DNA analysis is possible, rather than simply blood-typing, I suppose that a large blood stain could be considered part of the victim’s body. In a way, a blood stain of that type would be more conclusive evidence of death than would a foot or hand should one turn up somewhere, and they are almost always considered evidence of death.
> [@David42](#):
>
> And there is a way completely around any of the types of evidence mentioned–the confession. A killer who has written down in a diary “I murdered John Smith today” could be successfully prosecuted on that and that alone, even if he never admits how he did it.
That’s correct. As I said in one of these threads, a conviction might also be obtained by virtue of the testimony of a third party to whom the murderer confessed.
> [@simster](#):
>
> I’ve been reading this thread since my ill advised post - and I want to thank the different posters for some viewpoints I had not considered before hand - I had a difficult time with the concept of “we all think she was guilty but couldn’t convict” - since, IMHO, the entire point was to prove her guilt or doubt thereof - I see now the difference in part of that - not being entirely sure _what_ she was guilty of, or even that the actual crime itself was the one committed.
>
> at the end of this trial we only know a couple of things for sure - that Caylee was dead and that Casey was a liar - how those two things were intertwined we were not shown to the degree needed for a conviction.
>
> Thank you to the members of this thread that helped to highlight that difference.
Nice post. Thank you.
---
### Author:  [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)
#### Post date: [July 8, 2011, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055/223 "2011-07-08T22:57:41Z")
> [@Frylock](#):
>
> Can you give a cite for this injunction against stacking inferences?
>
> I understand the argument that stacked inferences should often be avoided. What I’m asking for is a citation for the idea that it’s an explicitly formulated rule that is supposed to apply in certain legal contexts, and particularly, that the rule applies to juries.
To clarify, you want a legal citation or a logic citation or either?
I will presume legal and will begin to look. This may take some time. The specific instance I know of is in closing arguments. You can object to the other side stacking inferences, and I will endeavor to find it.
To further clairfy, this is the law at least in my state, Kansas. If you wish me to prove for certain that it is the law in Anthony’s state (what is this, N. Carolina?) I would admit I do not know for sure this is also the law there.
---
### Author:  [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)
#### Post date: [July 8, 2011, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055/224 "2011-07-08T23:06:32Z")
> [@mlees](#):
>
> Right. I was thinking along the lines of a possible manslaughter related charge (a drug assisted baby sitting attempt gone wrong).
>
> Also, would “accessory after the fact” have to be included as another [seperate] charge, or could Casey, assuming she helped bury the corpse (and not reporting it to the authorities), have been convicted based on the charges that were actually filed against her?
I do not think accessory after the fact is lesser included. The elements of murder may all be proven without any question of what happened afterwards to cover it up or otherwise further obstruction of justice, or hiding a fugitive, or any other of the ways that accessory after the fact can occur.
---
### Author:  [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)
#### Post date: [July 9, 2011, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055/225 "2011-07-09T00:16:04Z")
> [@Frylock](#):
>
> Can you give a cite for this injunction against stacking inferences?
>
> I understand the argument that stacked inferences should often be avoided. What I’m asking for is a citation for the idea that it’s an explicitly formulated rule that is supposed to apply in certain legal contexts, and particularly, that the rule applies to juries.
for a start, the issue is discussed at this link as for the state of Vermont. Please note that another commenter took issue with the analysis. It could be the idea is evolving, and I admit to not having analyzed case law on a serious basis for ten years now. I am still looking for something better, But haven’t tried looking at these Vermont cases yet. I’m not suggesting the blogger’s opinion is conclusiveof the question, but that here are some cases which may answer the question.
> **[What You Could Infer, If I Were a Carpenter](https://scovlegal.blogspot.com/2011/04/what-you-could-infer-if-i-were.html)**
>
> A blog summarizing each and every published Vermont Supreme Court (SCOV) decision and commentary on the practice of law in Vermont
Of course I am more interested in a N. Carolina or U.S. supreme court ruling that applies to the states. Still looking–
---
### Author:  [@Hello\_Again](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hello_Again)
#### Post date: [July 9, 2011, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055/226 "2011-07-09T00:22:08Z")
> [@Max\_Torque](#):
>
> There’s a term we learn in law school: _res ipsa loquitur_. It means, “the thing speaks for itself.” Let’s say a man is walking down the sidewalk, and a piano falls on his head. Being the only person around, you dash up the stairs of the building he was standing next to, and the only person in that building is on the top floor next to an open, piano-sized window. Regardless of the fact that you didn’t see him push the piano out the window, it defies reason to explain the falling piano in any other way.
I find your explanation of the res ipsa doctrine to be lacking.
To create res ipsa, the act must occur within the sphere of defendant’s exclusive control. There must be an act which cannot occur without a breach of duty. With those factors present, the duty of care and the breach of that duty can be inferred from the circumstances.
The typical example is a patient who has the wrong leg amputated while under anasthesia. Plaintiff is excused, under res ipsa, of proving anything beyond the fact of the injury and the nature of the damages. In fact, the patient doesn’t even have to prove who did the negligent act because only a few specific people could possibly have been the cause. If proven that the surgical room is a zone of exclusive control, everyone in the operating room can be charged with commission of the negligent act for the Plaintiff’s purposes (they can sue each other to sort it out after).
By contrast, if a homeless man stumbles int the ER waiting area and 2 minutes later suddenly dies, it does not follow that you look at the charge nurse and automatically find her negligent, because she was closest and had the duty of care. First of all, it’s a thing which can happen without breach of a duty, and second, the area was never under her exclusive control. She might be ordinarily negligent, we don’t know, but Res Ipsa does not apply.
Even if res ipsa could be applied to criminal matters – which it can’t unless the charge is criminal negligence --the key thing here is there is no set of facts in which it can be proven that Casey had exclusive control over Caylee at the time of death. To know that, they would have to know a time and place of death, which are two things they did not know.
---
### Author:  [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)
#### Post date: [July 9, 2011, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055/227 "2011-07-09T00:26:22Z")
Frylock:
It appears here that the Supreme Court of Texas disagrees with me, at least as a hardline rule. They may be saying that the issue may better be aproached from another angle, rather than stacking inferences. They do conced the problem but also illustrate an instance where it is in fact.
I was thinking it was in the Kansas rules of evidence somewhere but that didn’t pan out. Perhaps it was and they’ve repealed it.
Still no idea on how N. Carolina views it.
[http://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-court-of-criminal-appeals/1341055.html](http://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-court-of-criminal-appeals/1341055.html)
---
### Author:  [@Disgruntled\_Penguin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Disgruntled_Penguin)
#### Post date: [July 9, 2011, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055/228 "2011-07-09T00:26:34Z")
> [@David42](#):
>
> for a start, the issue is discussed at this link as for the state of Vermont. Please note that another commenter took issue with the analysis. It could be the idea is evolving, and I admit to not having analyzed case law on a serious basis for ten years now. I am still looking for something better, But haven’t tried looking at these Vermont cases yet. I’m not suggesting the blogger’s opinion is conclusiveof the question, but that here are some cases which may answer the question.
>
> [What You Could Infer, If I Were a Carpenter](http://scovlegal.blogspot.com/2011/04/what-you-could-infer-if-i-were.html)
>
> Of course I am more interested in a N. Carolina or U.S. supreme court ruling that applies to the states. Still looking–
Forget N. Carolina. I’d start with Florida.
---
### Author:  [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)
#### Post date: [July 9, 2011, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055/229 "2011-07-09T01:08:57Z")
> [@Disgruntled\_Penguin](#):
>
> Forget N. Carolina. I’d start with Florida.
D’oh. I thought I was getting something wrong about that.:smack:
---
### Author:  [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)
#### Post date: [July 9, 2011, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055/230 "2011-07-09T01:17:48Z")
> [@Living\_Well\_Is\_Best\_Revenge](#):
>
> None, but there doesn’t have to be. He isn’t on trial.
So we just have to accept it, with no evidence at all? Why?
Regards,
Shodan
---
### Author:  [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)
#### Post date: [July 9, 2011, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055/231 "2011-07-09T02:24:55Z")
Because the state bears the burden of proving the charges it has lain. The defense bears no burden of proof.
---
### Author:  [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)
#### Post date: [July 9, 2011, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055/232 "2011-07-09T03:47:24Z")
Frylock: I will concede the issue.
After finding several more states not agreeing with my approach, I’m not interested in looking any further–I acknowledge the law has evolved without me.
I did once argue this to the court of appeals of Kansas–its an unpublished decision–and they agreed, but this was something like 15 years ago. They said my instance was harmless however, so I didn’t win the appeal on the issue. Even if Kansas hasn’t addressed this issue, its not really relevant if my state and my state alone holds out. I’m not offering this experience as the cite you ask for, just assuring my good faith in the statement to begin with.
None of these opinions I have read tonight claim that stacking inferences is a good thing in all cases, but examples have been shown that it is not a perfect rule. Apparently, as I mentioned, a preferable way to analyze this sort of problem is being embraced. I don’t have an opinion on that yet since I don’t know what the new doctrine is.
At any rate, it is still a valid principle that stacked inferences ought to be avoided if possible, because they can lead to illogical results frequently, but apparently not always. Budding and experienced debaters should be very careful at the least if they think stacked inferences help their position.
It’s still something to look out for–even if the legal analysis has evolved.
But I concede I cannot show a current cite that stacked inferences are strictly forbidden in either Florida statutes or caselaw ir Supreme Court caselaw applicable to the states.
Thanks for the challenge though.
---
### Author:  [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)
#### Post date: [July 9, 2011, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055/233 "2011-07-09T03:48:57Z")
I wonder if a Lawrence Walgrave solution would be possible.
---
### Author:  [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)
#### Post date: [July 9, 2011, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055/234 "2011-07-09T03:52:31Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#):
>
> I wonder if a Lawrence Walgrave solution would be possible.
I’m uncertain how this applies:
> [@](#):
>
> Papers concerning a dispute between Lawrence Walgrave and Elizabeth his wife, plaintiffs, and Charles Harcourt and Ann his wife, defendants, over three messuages, a water-mill, two hundred acres of land, fifty acres of meadow, two hundred acres of pasture, twenty acres of wood, sixty acres of moor and twenty acres of heath in Whitley. Charles Harcourt and Anne his wife claim the same by virtue of a settlement on the marriage of John Bristowe to the said Ann. At this time Henry Hogge and John Blount were seised of the said premises for the use of the said John Bristowe and on the marriage they enfeoffed William Catesby and Ann his wife, Master Robert Catesby, clerk, Nicholas Catesby and the said John Bristow and Ann his wife of the same for the use of the said John Bristow, Ann his wife and their heirs. John Bristow had since died and his widow had married the said Charles Harcourt.
> Lawrence Walgrave and Elizabeth his wife maintain that William Bristow had been given the said premises by William Braystofte, Simon Brychys and Robert Lowe and that he had died leaving Elizabeth his heir.
> Charles Harcourt and Anne his wife reply that the said William Bristow had enfeoffed John Frisby, William Haddon and Thomas Bishop of the same, that Thomas Bishop had outlived the others and had enfeoffed the said Henry Hogge and John Blunt.
---
### Author:  [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)
#### Post date: [July 9, 2011, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055/235 "2011-07-09T03:55:01Z")
> [@Frank](#):
>
> I’m uncertain how this applies:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten\_Little\_Indians\_%28novel%29](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Little_Indians_%28novel%29)
By that great British jurist (alas, fictional).
---
### Author:  [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)
#### Post date: [July 9, 2011, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055/236 "2011-07-09T04:02:55Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#):
>
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten\_Little\_Indians\_%28novel%29](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Little_Indians_%28novel%29)
>
> By that great British jurist (alas, fictional).
You know, you made a comment in a thread in IMHO, or MPSIMS, or the Pit, encouraging vigilantism in this case, far more explicitly. I passed that by. I shan’t now.
The US criminal system is a rule of law, not of popular opinion. Your support of the latter is despicable.
---
### Author:  [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)
#### Post date: [July 9, 2011, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055/237 "2011-07-09T04:06:56Z")
> [@Frank](#):
>
> You know, you made a comment in a thread in IMHO, or MPSIMS, or the Pit, encouraging vigilantism in this case, far more explicitly. I passed that by. I shan’t now.
>
> The US criminal system is a rule of law, not of popular opinion. Your support of the latter is despicable.
Undoubtedly its irrational, I was merely stating my feelings.
---
### Author:  [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)
#### Post date: [July 9, 2011, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055/238 "2011-07-09T04:13:27Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#):
>
> Undoubtedly its irrational, I was merely stating my feelings.
It’s not irrational; it’s abhorrent and despicable. Irrational is a nice word–too nice for what you’re urging and supporting. Your stance completely stands against everything the justice system in the US has attempted to stand for and to fight against.
---
### Author:  [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)
#### Post date: [July 9, 2011, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055/239 "2011-07-09T04:21:14Z")
> [@Frank](#):
>
> It’s not irrational; it’s abhorrent and despicable. Irrational is a nice word–too nice for what you’re urging and supporting. Your stance completely stands against everything the justice system in the US has attempted to stand for and to fight against.
I wouldn’t advocate it. And due to the factors you’ve mentioned its probably a bad idea, however my feelings are what they are.
---
### Author:  [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)
#### Post date: [July 9, 2011, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055/240 "2011-07-09T04:27:13Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#):
>
> I wouldn’t advocate it.
You have advocated it. Twice, in two different threads. You’re not as sly as you think you are.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055.md?page=11)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055.md?page=13)