And perhaps that’s exactly the problem.
All kinds of people who were “half paying attention to this case” while they went about their normal lives believe that their conclusions are more valid than the conclusions of the twelve people who for weeks paid complete attention to **nothing but** this case.
---
### Author:  [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)
#### Post date: [July 7, 2011, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055/126 "2011-07-07T22:32:07Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#):
>
> Unless I’m misunderstanding you, this is incorrect. A logical inference is exactly what juries are often forced to draw, and “conduct after the fact” is often used as evidence of guilt, or behavior that is inconsistent with a lack of innocence, to word it differently. For example, flight can imply guilt. There’s no legal prohibition from making logical inferences from someone’s behavior following a crime. It’s done all the time. Juries need to consider all the evidence provided.
Juries can only make inferences from the facts provided. They can’t make inferences from the inferences they have already drawn. They can infer a guilty mind from Casey’s behavior after the death, but they can’t then infer an act from the guilty mind.
---
### Author:  [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)
#### Post date: [July 7, 2011, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055/127 "2011-07-07T22:39:08Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#):
>
> Juries can only make inferences from the facts provided. They can’t make inferences from the inferences they have already drawn. They can infer a guilty mind from Casey’s behavior after the death, but they can’t then infer an act from the guilty mind.
A fact provided is how Casey behaved after the crime occurred. The jury is free to draw whatever inference from that they’d like. If they infer a “guilty mind,” that (along with the rest of the evidence) absolutely could lead them to believe the person is guilty. I’m not sure why you think juries can’t do this. They do it all the time. They are the ones applying the “reasonable man” standard, and if they think it’s unreasonable that a guiltless Casey behaved the way she did, then they’re free to do so and to weigh that conclusion along with the rest of the evidence.
---
### Author:  [@voltaire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/voltaire)
#### Post date: [July 7, 2011, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055/128 "2011-07-07T22:45:21Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#):
>
> If I was a juror, she’d have been found guilty of some form of homicide.
I’m rapidly tiring of the subject for now, so I will leave the other finer points for someone else to address, if they so choose. I’ll only point out that your lack of specificity as to exactly \*which \*“form of homicide” she is guilty of belies a significant problem.
---
### Author:  [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)
#### Post date: [July 7, 2011, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055/129 "2011-07-07T22:53:12Z")
> [@voltaire](#):
>
> I’m rapidly tiring of the subject for now, so I will leave the other finer points for someone else to address, if they so choose. I’ll only point out that your lack of specificity as to exactly \*which \*“form of homicide” she is guilty of belies a significant problem.
Why? Here’s a portion of the jury instructions:
> [@](#):
>
> In this case, Casey Marie Anthony is accused of Murder in the First Degree, Aggravated
>
> Child Abuse, Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child, and four counts of Providing False Information to a Law Enforcement Officer.
>
> Murder in the First Degree includes the lesser crimes of Murder in the Second Degree,
>
> Manslaughter and Third Degree Felony Murder, all of which are unlawful.
>
> A killing that is excusable or was committed by the use of justifiable deadly force is lawful.
>
> If you find Caylee Marie Anthony was killed by Casey Marie Anthony, you will then consider the circumstances surrounding the killing in deciding if the killing was Murder in the First Degree or was Murder in the Second Degree or Manslaughter or Third Degree Felony Murderwhether the killing was excusable or resulted from justifiable use of deadly force
They had all kinds of options. I didn’t sit through the weeks of the trial, so I won’t pretend that I understand every aspect of it, but no plausible scenario exists (for me) where she is not at least guilty of the least of these homicide charges, and I could well have been convinced of one of the more serious ones, depending upon the entirety of the evidence. But there’s no reasonable scenario where a little girl’s body dumped in the woods with duct tape affixed to her face wasn’t the result of unlawful homicide.
---
### Author:  [@voltaire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/voltaire)
#### Post date: [July 7, 2011, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055/130 "2011-07-07T22:59:29Z")
Simply put, if you had enough legal cause to find her guilty of some form of homicide, you wouldn’t have any problem telling me exactly which form that is. But since you can’t, you don’t.
---
### Author:  [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)
#### Post date: [July 7, 2011, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055/131 "2011-07-07T23:02:47Z")
Nope, that would be yet another illogical inference. Someone can logically conclude something has AT LEAST met a minimum standard, possibly more pending a fuller exploration of the evidence. But enjoy your “gotcha” if you like. I don’t seem to have the emotional investment in this case that some people do.
---
### Author:  [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)
#### Post date: [July 7, 2011, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055/132 "2011-07-07T23:20:51Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#):
>
> fact provided is how Casey behaved after the crime occurred. The jury is free to draw whatever inference from that they’d like. If they infer a “guilty mind,” that (along with the rest of the evidence) absolutely could lead them to believe the person is guilty. I’m not sure why you think juries can’t do this. They do it all the time. They are the ones applying the “reasonable man” standard, and if they think it’s unreasonable that a guiltless Casey behaved the way she did, then they’re free to do so and to weigh that conclusion along with the rest of the evidence.
Well, for one thing nobody knows exactly when within the 31-day period Caylee died. And no one knows just when Casey either killed Caylee or became aware that she had died. Those things would need to be proven before it could be concluded that Casey had failed to notify the authorities that Caylee was missing (to address one area of concern), and before it could be concluded that her behavior at a certain time had anything to do with what she knew or was guilty of at that time.
That “proof” thing is a pesky hurdle but it’s there for a good reason.
> [@Stratocaster](#):
>
> But there’s no reasonable scenario where a little girl’s body dumped in the woods with duct tape affixed to her face wasn’t the result of unlawful homicide.
Sure there is. She could have died as the result of an accident and then been hidden away by someone fearful getting the blame. I’m not saying that is what happened, but it is a possibility. And we have no proof (or even evidence) that Casey was responsible for either the duct tape or Caylee’s death.
> [@Stratocaster](#):
>
> They had all kinds of options. I didn’t sit through the weeks of the trial, so I won’t pretend that I understand every aspect of it, but no plausible scenario exists (for me) where she is not at least guilty of the least of these homicide charges, and I could well have been convinced of one of the more serious ones…
But as a juror you can’t legally (or morally) decide that a defendant is somehow guilty of something and then pick something from a laundry list of charges in order to assure that he or she gets _some kind_ of punishment for it. In a court of law, it must be proven that the defendant committed the crime he or she is convicted of.
---
### Author:  [@Mgalindo13](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mgalindo13)
#### Post date: [July 7, 2011, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055/133 "2011-07-07T23:24:03Z")
> [@kenetic](#):
>
> 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.
There is a declaration of factual innocence, but it’s pretty rare and it’s not determined by a jury.
---
### Author:  [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)
#### Post date: [July 8, 2011, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055/134 "2011-07-08T00:16:27Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#):
>
> Well, for one thing nobody knows exactly when within the 31-day period Caylee died. And no one knows just when Casey either killed Caylee or became aware that she had died. Those things would need to be proven before it could be concluded that Casey had failed to notify the authorities that Caylee was missing (to address one area of concern), and before it could be concluded that her behavior at a certain time had anything to do with what she knew or was guilty of at that time.
>
> That “proof” thing is a pesky hurdle but it’s there for a good reason.
Casey admitted she didn’t notify–in fact, her defense conceded that she was aware of the death from when it occurred. It was also pretty well-established when the parents (Cindy in particular) last saw Caylee, and when the stories started about the baby being with the fictitious nanny. Casey admitted to the cops she didn’t contact them until after an extensive period of time, while she was conducting her own investigation (her initial story), and she herself acknowledged that it was 31 days in the 911 call. Seriously, there’s no material disagreement from anyone, including Casey, that Caylee was “missing” for an extended time before Casey went to the cops. This particular “pesky hurdle” was overcome some time ago.
> [@](#):
>
> Sure there is. She could have died as the result of an accident and then been hidden away by someone fearful getting the blame. I’m not saying that is what happened, but it is a possibility. And we have no proof (or even evidence) that Casey was responsible for either the duct tape or Caylee’s death.
The accident Casey said occurred was an accidental drowning. Duct tape has no reasonable explanation if that occurred. So, we have a mom who didn’t report her missing toddler for a month, lied about “kidnappers,” and then the body is discovered abandoned in the woods with duct tape over the face. Consider those facts jointly, not separately.
> [@](#):
>
> But as a juror you can’t legally (or morally) decide that a defendant is somehow guilty of something and then pick something from a laundry list of charges in order to assure that he or she gets _some kind_ of punishment for it. In a court of law, it must be proven that the defendant committed the crime he or she is convicted of.
I only indicated that I didn’t sit on the jury and haven’t sifted through all the evidence. But there’s no scenario where some form of unlawful homicide didn’t occur. I’m not suggesting the jury just pick something.
---
### Author:  [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)
#### Post date: [July 8, 2011, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055/135 "2011-07-08T01:21:58Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#):
>
> Casey admitted she didn’t notify–in fact, her defense conceded that she was aware of the death from when it occurred.
But then we’d have to believe the drowning story, wouldn’t we? 😉 And I’m not too terribly sure I do.
---
### Author:  [@Locrian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Locrian)
#### Post date: [July 8, 2011, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055/136 "2011-07-08T01:41:15Z")
Fact is, Strat, you don’t know Caylee was murdered. And if she was, you don’t know by who or even when or by what method. These need to be established before we can convict.
I think Casey buried her, I suspect she may have killed her by accident, but I have no proof on this and neither did the prosecution show us anything definitive.
If I were a juror, I would’ve HAD to vote not guilty on the murder and manslaughter charges.
---
### Author:  [@voltaire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/voltaire)
#### Post date: [July 8, 2011, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055/137 "2011-07-08T01:44:55Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#):
>
> Nope, that would be yet another illogical inference. Someone can logically conclude something has AT LEAST met a minimum standard, possibly more pending a fuller exploration of the evidence. But enjoy your “gotcha” if you like. I don’t seem to have the emotional investment in this case that some people do.
I wasn’t trying to pull a “gotcha ya” on you, I was trying to get you to look at it from a simple angle without yet again delving into the many specifics. And I really don’t have an emotional investment, (like so many others) if you were implying that statement applied to me.
Look, I’m relatively convinced that Casey Anthony was actually guilty of manslaughter. I’m also relatively certain that she could have easily been convicted of manslaughter had the prosecution not over-charged her with first-degree murder and thus neglected to make the case for manslaughter. But it’s just not the jury’s fault that the prosecution didn’t give them what they needed to make that conviction. It’s a shame it went down that way, but the shame is compounded when the blame that belongs on the prosecution (and the police) for that is placed on the jury. But they don’t have careers in law enforcement to protect, so I guess the blame-shift is to be expected.
If the blame were properly placed in this case, it could lead to improvements. Maybe prosecutors would think twice before pursuing the death-penalty (a very serious endeavor) with such scant evidence. Particularly when they could have easily charged her more realistically, for the actual crimes she much more likely committed, and still put her away for a good long time. Instead they went after what the mob and the media were all clamoring for. They lost, and will now have to suffer while watching her walk. So now the mob and the media are naturally blaming the jury, instead of maybe looking inward and asking the tough questions. It’s easy to get caught up in that and think that the vocal majority simply must be right.
I’m just glad they didn’t move that trial much farther south - I wouldn’t have wanted any chance of being on that jury! Unfortunately, Casey has said she’s now considering moving to S. Florida. First we inherit O.J. (but thanks Vegas!) and now this!?! :smack:
(Maybe we’ll all chip in, send her on a trip to Vegas, and hope for the best.) 😃
---
### Author:  [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)
#### Post date: [July 8, 2011, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055/138 "2011-07-08T01:45:45Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#):
>
> A fact provided is how Casey behaved after the crime occurred. The jury is free to draw whatever inference from that they’d like. If they infer a “guilty mind,” that (along with the rest of the evidence) absolutely could lead them to believe the person is guilty. I’m not sure why you think juries can’t do this. They do it all the time. They are the ones applying the “reasonable man” standard, and if they think it’s unreasonable that a guiltless Casey behaved the way she did, then they’re free to do so and to weigh that conclusion along with the rest of the evidence.
I didn’t say they can’t do it. I said they’re not supposed to. And that’s not how the “reasonable man” standard works.
---
### Author:  [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)
#### Post date: [July 8, 2011, 9:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055/139 "2011-07-08T09:19:43Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#):
>
> But then we’d have to believe the drowning story, wouldn’t we? 😉 And I’m not too terribly sure I do.
Nope, we’d just have to believe Caylee was missing for 31 days, a conclusion supported by a number of things, including when the grandparents last saw her and when the nonsense stories started.
> [@voltaire](#):
>
> Look, I’m relatively convinced that Casey Anthony was actually guilty of manslaughter. I’m also relatively certain that she could have easily been convicted of manslaughter had the prosecution not over-charged her with first-degree murder and thus neglected to make the case for manslaughter. But it’s just not the jury’s fault that the prosecution didn’t give them what they needed to make that conviction. It’s a shame it went down that way, but the shame is compounded when the blame that belongs on the prosecution (and the police) for that is placed on the jury. But they don’t have careers in law enforcement to protect, so I guess the blame-shift is to be expected.
I didn’t read the transcripts, so maybe the prosecution could have “strategized” the presentation of the options better (meaning, give the jury the building blocks to convict on lesser charges if, for example, they can’t agree on pre-meditation). But the jurors certainly had the option of deciding manslaughter, for example. So, heck, I’ll blame everybody. 😃
> [@Locrian](#):
>
> Fact is, Strat, you don’t know Caylee was murdered. And if she was, you don’t know by who or even when or by what method. These need to be established before we can convict.
But I do “know” in the only sense required of a jury. People keep asserting this need to “prove” certain things that suggest to me that they think only a certain level of “conclusive” proof is adequate to decide guilt. No. I conclude she is guilty at the point the evidence tells me it’s no longer reasonable to maintain a presumption of innocence. A toddler’s corpse is dumped in the woods with duct tape covering her face? Sorry, it’s not reasonable to think a homicide did not occur, and it’s particularly ludicrous to accept the defense alternative (accidental drowning) with the duct tape in the picture. If Caylee was murdered, it’s not reasonable to think that Casey, who didn’t report the child missing for a month, fabricated stories about kidnappers, lied to the police, offers an alternative explanation that is at odds with the physical evidence, etc., isn’t guilty of it, especially in the absence of some plausible alternative explanation. I can say it’s _possible_ that Casey didn’t kill her daughter, but I don’t believe that’s a _reasonable_ conclusion.
I call the reaction to this verdict the “CSI Syndrome.” We all watch too much TV and believe that there must be some form of Grisolm offering conclusive DNA proof, a specific cause of death from a forensic pathologist, or some other cool and dramatic explanation. That stuff can make it easier, but it is not some sort of basic requirement. People were convicted 100 years ago without DNA evidence, without advanced forensic analysis techniques. How did they do it? Common sense, reason. That’s all this jury needed too.
> [@Really Not All That Bright](#):
>
> I didn’t say they can’t do it. I said they’re not supposed to.
At this point I can only ask for a cite that a jury is not permitted to draw inferences of guilt from behavior after the crime occurred.
---
### Author:  [@Acid\_Lamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acid_Lamp)
#### Post date: [July 8, 2011, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055/140 "2011-07-08T12:35:37Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#):
>
> But I do “know” in the only sense required of a jury. People keep asserting this need to “prove” certain things that suggest to me that they think only a certain level of “conclusive” proof is adequate to decide guilt. No. I conclude she is guilty at the point the evidence tells me it’s no longer reasonable to maintain a presumption of innocence.
Snip.
**Stratocaster** , This is what everyone else here is trying to explain to you. You don’t “know” diddle all. All the prosecution presented was a bunch of circumstantial evidence without any hard facts tying Casey directly to the actual death of her daughter. I will grant that you, personally, can feel that evidence is convincing enough to eliminate other explanations for the child’s death but that does not show \*Casey’s \*guilt either. It simply means that you are convinced the child was murdered, Get it? You don’t need to go to unicorns and pixies to come up with a plausible doubt to Casey’s innocence in the _charge of murder_.
The defense does NOT HAVE TO PROVIDE ANY ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO. They do not have to provide an alibi, they don’t have to do anything at all but ensure the prosecution doesn’t play fast and loose with the rules. You don’t have to prove Innocence, only guilt.
The jury made the correct choice under the circumstances presented. Cases are decided upon hard facts, not inferences from the sum of hearsay and vague evidence. Many legal experts here on the dope have told you as much already. If ever you are accused of a serious crime, you should hope that the court is held to as stringent of a standard as it was in this case, or else you could find yourself easily railroaded.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055.md?page=6)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-unjust-was-the-casey-anthony-verdict/588055.md?page=8)