Today is a sad day for American justice, as I'm sure you've all heard the verdict in the Casey Anthony trial. To be honest, I was not surprised, for, as you all know, I've had my experience with the American justice system. Of course, the Natalie Wood case is personal for me, very personal. My friend was a victim of that particular case. But that is not to say that our system, and lack of justice in other various cases, does not also bother me. I am appalled over today's verdict. In this particular case, this brutal death of an innocent toddler, well, it touches all of us.
This case will forever be discussed. There are those who believe justice has been served, and millions of others who are outraged over what they see as a total disregard for true justice. I am one of the latter. But, sadly, this is something I am used to.
We are still seeking justice for Natalie Wood. In some way, I also hope Caylee Anderson will also receive a piece of justice, somehow, someway, someday.
No thinking person could believe justice was served today. A killer got away with murder because they played the system, but justice was not done. Sound familiar? There is no justice for Caylee. She lay dead on the side of the road like garbage, while her murderer danced and partied. One more question should have been on the verdict form: if Casey is not guilty, then who killed Caylee and dumped her body like trash?
ReplyDeleteI was stunned by the verdict. Not guilty on all counts aside from the misdemeanor counts of lying to the authorities. That poor little angel lost her only shot at justice. The justice system dropped the ball, the jury system dropped the ball and another murderer goes free. I wonder what the title of her book will be?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThere were weaknesses in the prosecution's case and many of those weaknesses occurred due to length of time it took Casey Anthony to report her daughter missing and the lies she told to cover it up.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that they thought she was 100% not guilty. It was the reasonable doubt that set her free. IMO, she killed that little angel and tossed her away like yesterday's trash and got away with it because of the reasonable doubt that her own actions created and prosecution's inability to get by that.
Perhaps if the death penalty was not on the table, it would have been different?
One of the jurors said that they believed she was guilty but weighed the evidence against the punishment. That was not their job. They failed little Caylee.
ReplyDeleteThere was no reasonable doubt whatsoever. The defense cannot create reasonable just by spouting off any story they want to concoct. There was no evidence of accidental drowning (defense's story) at all. No evidence of molestation by Casey's father at all. The prosecution proved that Casey was the last one to see her daughter alive, knew her daughter was dead, and she lied about for 31 days until she got caught in her own web of lies. And her claim that the girl drowned proved her lies. Sorry, there is no other conclusion to reach BUT that Casey was responsible for the girl's death. This jury was brain-dead.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis case will be debated for ages, as is Natalie. What I think happened is that the jury was not capable of understanding the meaning of reasonable doubt. No, the defense didn't have to prove anything but they bedazzled the jury with all the comments of drowning in the pool, the incest, etc and then did nothing to prove it...they put that burden on themselves and didn't come through. The state did an excellent job with the evidence they had, and 12 jurors didn't do theirs. They owed it to justice to at least review the evidence, but they wanted to go home.
ReplyDeleteI think our justice system stinks, and I've thought that ever since Wagner walked free with Natalie not reseiving even the decency of a proper investigation. I also offer this opinion with all due respect to all other opinions. I angry over justice in our country. Another killer walks amongst us.
Sorry Pam, but you are incorrect. The jury was fooled by the defense. You do not appear to be an attorney so there does not appear to be any reason to carry on a debate. Cheers.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely correct, the jury was made up of 12 people who do not understand law, that is why the decision was erroneous. We are stuck with it only because there is no right for the prosecution to appeal. If there was, the jury would be overturned.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletethat Casey asked to borrow the neighbor's shovel was enough evidence for me. that jury would not have gone home if I were on it. it's all sickening and sad that the jury did not understand the law.
ReplyDeleteAs an addendum, let me remind you of the primary reason for this blog, relating to the facts underlying the death of Natalie Wood. There is no direct evidence in this case either, but all of the facts that are available, also point to only one reasonable conclusion. Do you not see the parallels here?
ReplyDeletePam, I did watch the trial. I listened to all the testimony and reviewed all the evidence. I also viewed the videotaped testimony more than once. I read the pleadings; I reviewed the timeline of events. There could be only one conclusion from the trial, and that is that this woman killed her child. Now, of course the defendant in a criminal trial does not have to do or prove anything. They can just sit there the whole time and do nothing. This however they did not do. They raised an AFFIRMATIVE defense. They TOLD the jury that the child drowned. By choosing such a defense, they necessarily injected additional factual inferences into evidence. First, that Casey had knowledge of the child's death and the facts surrounding the child's death. Second, that Casey dumped her body or knew the person who did dump her body in the swamp. Third that the entire month her child lay dead in a trash pile, she was celebrating and partying while lying to her parents and to the police, while all time she KNEW that her daughter was dead and she KNEW where her body was. Continued.
ReplyDeletePart 2
ReplyDeleteThese inferences, allowed by the defense's own statements in open court, taken together as a whole with the strong circumstantial evidence provided by the prosecution, could lead reasonably to only one conclusion. Unlike a trial where the defendant says nothing and takes the position that they do not know what happened and it is up to the prosecution to prove what happened, here, the defense of actual knowledge of what happened (that it was an accident and was covered up), is a factual inference that is ADDED to the prosecution's case, when the defense totally and completely FAILS to substantiate their AFFIRMATIVE defense. So, factually there is no evidence whatsoever in the record from which any competent jury could infer that the child drowned as Casey CLAIMED. Casey did not take the stand. Why? If you are telling the jury that you did not kill your daughter, that she drowned in the swimming pool, then any reasonable jury should and would want you to tell them what happened. Whether they would have believed her in light of the fact that she was proven to be and admitted being a pathological liar, is beside the point. Continued
Part 3
ReplyDeleteThis was her chosen AFFIRMATIVE defense and she utterly failed to prove her choice of defense. As such, there could be no reasonable doubt about the truth of what happened in this case. Because the affirmative claim of accidental drowning was not proven AT ALL, it is the same legally and logically as if she had claimed that aliens had abducted the child. This is what the jury relied on and it is absolutely wrong. The circumstantial evidence shows beyond any reasonable doubt that Caylee was killed, put in a bag and dumped. She did not get into the bag and take herself to the dump. That the prosecution could not prove the cause of death, is immaterial because whatever the cause of death, it was shown to be at the hand of another, and thus, murder or manslaughter. This, combined with the evidence that Casey was the last person to see her daughter alive, combined with the human decomposition evidence in her car, combined with her lies, combined with all of her other actions and statements, again, leaves no reasonable doubt. The only possible doubt in this case was unreasonable doubt. That is what this jury relied on.
Thank you, Vincent! I gave been looking forward to reading your words from both a legal and a moral standpoint.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI have no idea if my comment is going to stay or disappear like my other comment the other night did on this subject. (This is from Marti). I put this subject matter here for a reason: I do believe this case has similar points close to Natalie's case.
ReplyDeleteI am not a lawyer, and I wrote GNGS wondering what a publisher's legal team would have to say about it: their answer was returned with not only a nod, but also with a compliment for how wll I presented the legal aspects. GNGS is a complete testiment to how sometimes out law in America fails us, and I believe we were slighted in the Anthony case as well.
Vincent, most everyone here knows you are the person who started the Natalie petition, and that you do know the law professionally. I will admit that I saw HOW many people were beginning to believe Casey would walk before the actually verdict came in. The verdict did not surprise me, but I also had done my homework and learned what factually constitututes "reasonable doubt." By the letter of the law, there was no legitimate reasonable doubt in this case, IMO. But, because of the defense's direction (as you explained) everything seemed to get clouded.
I think what angers me most about the Anthony jury is that they made their decision so damn fast. We've heard from one of them, a woman who said it turned her stomach to offer her not guilty vote, but that she had to do it. No, she didn't have to do it. If her stomach was turning, she should've requested to review some of the evidence. She should've asked for a more detailed explanation of the law....an explanation of what "reasonable doubt" actually means. (continued...)
I also believe that the jury was confused by the "death penalty" aspect of the case. They evidently thought that if they found her guilty she would get the death penalty, which of course is also incorrect. If she was found guilty then there would be another separate phase of the trial to determine the punishment.
ReplyDelete(continued)
ReplyDeleteIt's the same with Natalie's case. When all the facts are put together, there's no room left for reasonable doubt. Wagner was with Natalie when she went overboard and we have a willing-to-testify witness to that fact. So, why has nothing been done about it? People call an eyewitness account hearsay. That is wrong, wrong, wrong.
In the Anthony case, the jury may not have believed the baby drowned in the pool, but that scenario thrown into the works caused them reasonale doubt. It was not proven EVIDENCE...the ONLY thing they were to look at, like a poster here says: what about the shovel...oh, another coincidence?
No, there has been neglect and no justice for Natalie Wood, and I can still help do something about that. And there was no justice for Saylee Anthony, and I'm doing my part to help do something about that, too. Here's a FB page for anyone interested for child victims. It's called "Porch Lights on for Caylee Marie Anthony" and there is a good petition to sign there. (copy and paste)
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=237189926299700
One last note: I admire all jurors on any case for doing their civic duty, especially those who get sequestered such as in the Anthony case. I do not approve of the ambush of them, I only wish they had known the true meaning of reasonable doubt. Marti Rulli