# 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:** 6
### Author:  [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)
#### Post date: [July 7, 2011, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055/101 "2011-07-07T16:19:58Z")
> [@jtgain](#):
>
> Witnesses see two friends walk together into a remote area of the woods. Only one comes back. He never reports his buddy missing. A month later, person two’s body is found in a demcomposing state in those same remote woods.
>
> That’s murder. What other reasonable explanation is there? No need for DNA, a murder weapon, fingerprints, etc.
There was a case in Australia about 20 years ago that was almost identical to this.
Two friends drove into the bush on a hunting trip. Only one of them came home. The body of the other was later discovered near the campsite with a bullet wound to the head.
What the coroner determined to have happened was what the survivor claimed had happened: The dead man had explained that he wanted to commit suicide. He also said that he didn’t want his family to have to deal with the shame, so he asked his friend to leave him behind when he went home and to say that he didn’t know where he was. After his friend left he shot himself through the head.
There was never any suggestion of murder in this instance. Yet it fits with your scenarios almost perfectly: Witnesses see two friends drive together into a remote area of the woods. Only one comes back. He never reports his buddy missing. Two weeks later, person two’s body is found in a demcomposing state in those same remote woods.
It was a really dumb thing to do, but it was borne out one friend’s respect for the other’s dying wishes. And you would convict him of murder despite that fact that his only connection to his friend’s death was failing to dissuade him from suicide.
I echo **Rand Rover** ’s sentiments: I’m glad you are not involved in the legal profession.
---
### Author:  [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)
#### Post date: [July 7, 2011, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055/102 "2011-07-07T16:24:05Z")
> [@G-SE](#):
>
> Yes, the forensic tests were less definitive, but combined with the other evidence, I, as a juror, would have taken that in with the other evidence and conclude that yes, there was a body in there. To me, the defense didn’t succeed in disputing the cadaver dog alerts, and didn’t succeed in disputing the science of the hair banding analysis, except to say it was “new” and “never used before”.
>
> As for the DNA of the hair, I believe it was conclusively identified as Caylee’s. There was testimony about there being a lack of DNA on the duct tape found with the remains, so maybe that is what you are thinking about.
I would never ever take a cadaver dog’s alert (or any other kind of alert) as conclusive because we can’t talk to the dogs. I had a drug dog alert on my car in a traffic stop but there were no drugs found and I never drive with drugs. I suppose there is the slim possibility that a passenger with drugs rode in the car.
To me alert there is always the possibility that the dog decides it is time for a snack.
I do think it is fair to use a dog alert as probable cause for a police officer to search, but not in the home for a misdemeanor–only for serious stuff, if its your home.
Police walking by your house with a dog who will alert to marijuana and then searching is bogus. A warrant is needed or exigent circumstances.
---
### Author:  [@G-SE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/G-SE)
#### Post date: [July 7, 2011, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055/103 "2011-07-07T16:28:25Z")
> [@David42](#):
>
> A lack of evidence that someone else could have done it is NOT the same as evidence that Casey did it.
It does prove it to me, beyond a reasonable doubt. Any other scenario (proposed or imagined) is not reasonable.
It is not reasonable to think someone, after impounding a car, happens to open the trunk, find a dead body, and go dump it in the swamp for no reason.
Again, this is all based on my opinion that the prosecution proved that Caylee was in the trunk. And it was only to respond to Blalron’s suggestion of charging her with improper disposal of a corpse.
---
### Author:  [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)
#### Post date: [July 7, 2011, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055/104 "2011-07-07T16:32:04Z")
> [@storyteller0910](#):
>
> Even if I grant these, they are not adequate, in my view, to constitute reasonable doubt (and that’s leaving out the fact that I think the motive was clear, and don’t know what “no DNA” is meant to imply or even _mean_, in this context)?
>
> This is not a good presentation of the issue. My ability to “imagine” a scenario is quite good - I write for a living. I could fabricate a thousand different scenarios is which Casey Anthony is entirely innocent; I could also fabricate scenarios where OJ is innocent, where the Duke lacrosse team is guity, where Osama Bin Laden isn’t really dead but is actually running the Mets. “I can imagine a scenario in which it is possible this person is innocent” is not adequate to establish reasonable doubt.
If it is reasonable, known to occur in real life without extraordianry proof not fanciful and does not ignore any evidence then “reasonable doubt” is exactly what an imagined scenario of lack of guilt is!
---
### Author:  [@G-SE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/G-SE)
#### Post date: [July 7, 2011, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055/105 "2011-07-07T16:33:49Z")
> [@David42](#):
>
> I would never ever take a cadaver dog’s alert (or any other kind of alert) as conclusive because we can’t talk to the dogs. I had a drug dog alert on my car in a traffic stop but there were no drugs found and I never drive with drugs. I suppose there is the slim possibility that a passenger with drugs rode in the car.
>
> To me alert there is always the possibility that the dog decides it is time for a snack.
>
> I do think it is fair to use a dog alert as probable cause for a police officer to search, but not in the home for a misdemeanor–only for serious stuff, if its your home.
>
> Police walking by your house with a dog who will alert to marijuana and then searching is bogus. A warrant is needed or exigent circumstances.
I’m trying not to cause a hijack, but just wanted to point out that in this case, the dog handler testified to both the training and track record of the dog in question, which to me proved the dog alert to be compelling evidence. Specifically, that the dog was trained around trash to avoid false positives, as well as no history of false positives spanning several years of use. But again, this is just my opinion and what I got out of the testimony / evidence.
---
### Author:  [@Max\_Torque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_Torque)
#### Post date: [July 7, 2011, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055/106 "2011-07-07T16:36:12Z")
I admit that I have not followed the trial or watched testimony with the rapaciousness of, for example, my mother. I have, however, read about the case and listened to some of the resulting fallout. That being said, here’s my take:
I think the jury was either misinformed about their duty, or they were poorly informed by the prosecution. I base this on the numerous times I’ve heard jurors or alternates saying things like, “I just couldn’t believe George didn’t know something,” and, “The prosecution didn’t prove motive.” The prosecution has to prove _the elements of the offense_, and nothing more. It would be nice to know what her motive was, but motive isn’t an element of the crime of murder. If the prosecution had done their job properly, the jury would have understood that. A jury can find a person guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt” even if there are pieces missing.
I also suspect two additional forces are at work here, the first being the CSI effect. Juries have come to expect miracles from forensic science, and it seems that some aren’t willing to convict unless there’s a lab tech who can say, “We found this tiny particle on the body, which exists only in the shoelaces of the defendant,” or whatever. In this case, there was no “smoking gun” like that. The second force is societal: somehow, we as a society are absurdly forgiving of mothers who murder their own children. If they’re prosecuted at all, their sentences tend to be laughably light.
---
### Author:  [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)
#### Post date: [July 7, 2011, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055/107 "2011-07-07T16:39:32Z")
Two friends walk in the woods. A has a warrant for his arrest. B dies of a heart attack. A does not want police contact and does not report the incident. Maybe he is stupid, but its plausible.
General fear of the police seeing you as a suspect, even if you are not guilty, is plausible. And the more police seek to close cases rather than find criminals, the more plausible it is.
If somebody breaks into my house and kills my wife and escapes, and does not leave crystal clear evidence, I would be TERRIFIED to call the police (even though I’d probably do it) because they are going to focus on me because their training says “the husband did it.”
---
### Author:  [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)
#### Post date: [July 7, 2011, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055/108 "2011-07-07T16:41:17Z")
> [@G-SE](#):
>
> I’m trying not to cause a hijack, but just wanted to point out that in this case, the dog handler testified to both the training and track record of the dog in question, which to me proved the dog alert to be compelling evidence. Specifically, that the dog was trained around trash to avoid false positives, as well as no history of false positives spanning several years of use. But again, this is just my opinion and what I got out of the testimony / evidence.
Good enough reason for a search. But it is not proof that the dog is infallible.
---
### Author:  [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)
#### Post date: [July 7, 2011, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055/109 "2011-07-07T16:42:21Z")
> [@Max\_Torque](#):
>
> “The prosecution didn’t prove motive.” The prosecution has to prove _the elements of the offense_, and nothing more. It would be nice to know what her motive was, but motive isn’t an element of the crime of murder.
There is a state of mind requirement – malice aforethought – which can be confused with motive.
> [@](#):
>
> A jury can find a person guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt” even if there are pieces missing.
It depends on what you mean by “pieces.”
---
### Author:  [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)
#### Post date: [July 7, 2011, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055/110 "2011-07-07T16:45:32Z")
> [@aceplace57](#):
>
> Casey was declared indigent. Her lawyers worked pro bono. There was a limited budget from Florida to pay witnesses travel expense, get forensic tests done etc.
>
> Casey didn’t buy her way out of trouble like OJ’s multiple million dollar defense.
Nitpick: _pro bono_ means free. Casey’s lawyers did get paid, just not by Casey.
---
### Author:  [@Acid\_Lamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acid_Lamp)
#### Post date: [July 7, 2011, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055/111 "2011-07-07T16:46:13Z")
> [@G-SE](#):
>
> It does prove it to me, beyond a reasonable doubt. Any other scenario (proposed or imagined) is not reasonable.
>
> It is not reasonable to think someone, after impounding a car, happens to open the trunk, find a dead body, and go dump it in the swamp for no reason.
>
> Again, this is all based on my opinion that the prosecution proved that Caylee was in the trunk. And it was only to respond to Blalron’s suggestion of charging her with improper disposal of a corpse.
Fair enough but the jury doesn’t get to make charges to make everyone feel better about things. The state had no case and instead of trying for lesser charges that they probably would have gotten to stick, they went for the brass ring, and lost on their bluff. Since they really held nothing, it was just that the did so.
---
### Author:  [@Rachellelogram](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rachellelogram)
#### Post date: [July 7, 2011, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055/112 "2011-07-07T19:39:38Z")
I would support mandatory temporary sterilization until she gets married.
---
### Author:  [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)
#### Post date: [July 7, 2011, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055/113 "2011-07-07T19:47:40Z")
> [@rachelellogram](#):
>
> I would support mandatory temporary sterilization until she gets married.
What the hell? I’m sure you don’t mean “…when she’d be safely under the control of her husband,” but I can’t imagine what you _do_ mean.
---
### Author:  [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)
#### Post date: [July 7, 2011, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055/114 "2011-07-07T19:50:46Z")
When there will be a man around to see that she murders babies _properly._
---
### Author:  [@PigArcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PigArcher)
#### Post date: [July 7, 2011, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055/115 "2011-07-07T20:02:04Z")
> [@markm](#):
>
> The jury did not find her innocent, they found her not guilty
Just for the record, finding someone innocent is never an option. The concept does not exist in out legal system. Someone on trial can only be found guilty or not guilty.
---
### Author:  [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)
#### Post date: [July 7, 2011, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055/116 "2011-07-07T20:15:28Z")
I might be reading it wrong, but the way I read the jury’s comments are “we knew she was guilty, but we aquitted anyway” - seems this means they clearly didn’t understand the concept they were supposed to.
IOW, the prosecution showed to them (the ones interviewed) beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey was guilty - but they felt they didn’t have enough evidence to convict.
I’m not quite sure how I understand that - if your standing there, at the end of the trial - saying 'yeah, we all felt she was guilty" - then how do you vote anything but? isn’t that the point?
I hope I’m missing some nuance - and I hope I’m never on a jury.
---
### Author:  [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)
#### Post date: [July 7, 2011, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055/117 "2011-07-07T20:20:29Z")
> [@simster](#):
>
> I might be reading it wrong, but the way I read the jury’s comments are “we knew she was guilty, but we aquitted anyway” - seems this means they clearly didn’t understand the concept they were supposed to.
>
> IOW, the prosecution showed to them (the ones interviewed) beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey was guilty - but they felt they didn’t have enough evidence to convict.
>
> I’m not quite sure how I understand that - if your standing there, at the end of the trial - saying 'yeah, we all felt she was guilty" - then how do you vote anything but? isn’t that the point?
>
> I hope I’m missing some nuance - and I hope I’m never on a jury.
A juror’s “feeling” that the defendant is guilty is not the standard by which the jury is supposed to decide. The standard is that the jury must determine that as a matter of _fact_, the prosecution has proved all elements of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. They are two different things.
---
### Author:  [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)
#### Post date: [July 7, 2011, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055/118 "2011-07-07T20:36:59Z")
> [@Acsenray](#):
>
> A juror’s “feeling” that the defendant is guilty is not the standard by which the jury is supposed to decide. The standard is that the jury must determine that as a matter of _fact_, the prosecution has proved all elements of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. They are two different things.
I’m probably not being clear enough - the jurists stated they were convinced of her guilt - seems to me they, and you, misunderstood the concept. They didn’t have a doubt about who committed the crime - they had a doubt about how and when - which while important, are not the real issue here (or shouldnt be).
The charge isnt “mr mustard in the library with a letter opener” - the charge is “mr mustard committed the crime”. The difference between M1 and other ‘lesser’ charges are about premeditation and method - but not about the ‘who’. Most of the other elements during the trial are to show how the who was capable and could have done the crime. or how the evidence points to only one possible culprit.
In some senses the Jury got it right - in that the prosecution did not prove every element they set out to, but they got it wrong in that the prosecution proved the primary aspect of the case - the who.
maybe I shouldnt be in this debate - like I said, there might be nuances here I am not considering - but based on what I understand of the system, the ‘rules’ and the evidence in this case - I would have voted guilty without hesitation.
---
### Author:  [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)
#### Post date: [July 7, 2011, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055/119 "2011-07-07T20:42:42Z")
> [@simster](#):
>
> I’m probably not being clear enough - the jurists stated they were convinced of her guilt - seems to me they, and you, misunderstood the concept.
The law doesn’t ask a jury to determine whether they are “convinced” of the defendant’s guilt. They are asked to determine whether the prosecution has proven each element of its case.
> [@](#):
>
> They didn’t have a doubt about who committed the crime - they had a doubt about how and when - which while important, are not the real issue here (or shouldnt be).
>
> The charge isnt “mr mustard in the library with a letter opener” - the charge is “mr mustard committed the crime”.
Well, you’re wrong about that.
> [@](#):
>
> In some senses the Jury got it right - in that the prosecution did not prove every element they set out to, but they got it wrong in that the prosecution proved the primary aspect of the case - the who.
And you know this how, exactly?
> [@](#):
>
> maybe I shouldnt be in this debate - like I said, there might be nuances here I am not considering - but based on what I understand of the system, the ‘rules’ and the evidence in this case - I would have voted guilty without hesitation.
Maybe you should be in this debate, because it seems you might be subject to some major misconceptions about the role of the finder of fact in the American legal system.
---
### Author:  [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)
#### Post date: [July 7, 2011, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055/120 "2011-07-07T20:58:59Z")
I wouldn’t be surprised if not guilty verdicts like this one occur all the time. This one only seems special because it received so much media attention from the start. It’s like OJ in that people are reacting to this case as if it’s the first time anyone charged with murder ended up not being convicted. But really, while it’s kind of surprise that she wasn’t found guilty, it’s not _that_ much of a surprise. At least to me.
I believe Casey did it. Admittedly, I barely know any of the arguments that the defense made, because they sounded so convolutedly implausble I didn’t want to waste any brain space with that info. I don’t see how anyone half paying attention to this case would not believe she was the killer.
That said, I acknowledge that mere belief is not strong enough to take someone’s life away. The verdict may not be just in an absolute sense, but I don’t think it’s fair to call it _un_just.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055.md?page=5)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055.md?page=7)