The Casey Anthony Case

I was late to the Casey Anthony case only watching a "48 Hours" special after the verdict. This morning an interesting article appeared in the Christian Science Monitor about the evidence in the case. The crux of the problem appears to have been connecting Casey Anthony to the death of her daughter Kaylee. That problem was made worse by three mistakes in the investigation. First, the police failed to respond to a report that human remains were found near the Anthony house in August despite the fact that a neighbor called for three straight days. When the body was finally found in the same spot in December, forensic evidence had degraded. The police also failed to use the most advanced DNA testing on two crucial pieces of evidence, duct tape found with the skull, and maggots discovered in the trunk of Anthony's car, that might have tied Casey Anthony to her daughter's death. Even if that evidence was produced, however, it would have been difficult to overcome the defense's contention that the little girl drowned, and the family panicked and hid the body. Folks I've talked to feel that this might be a case of television's CSI series influencing  people's perceptions of what evidence is required to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt. It seems to me that the circumstances taken together outweigh the problems with the forensics, but do juries in death penalty states now require absolute scientific certainty in order to convict? If the death penalty was off the table, would the jury have found Casey Anthony guilty? Probably not. The jury apparently had the option of convicting on manslaughter charges which don't carry the death penalty and don't require proof of premeditation. They also could have convicted on reckless child endangerment charges. In fact, given Anthony's bizarre behavior after the death, I'm shocked that the jury didn't convict on some form of child abuse.

This verdict is a perfect example of the difference between "not proven" and "not guilty." Not proven, of course, is the famous and controversial Scotch verdict that has been available to that country's jurors since 1728. Based on the limited statements by jury members, it seems that most believe that something fishy happened in the Anthony house, but that the prosecution couldn't pin down what it was beyond a reasonable doubt and the jury was unwilling to apply common sense in the absence of scientific absolutes.  Hopefully, upon reflection, many of the people who are criticizing the jury will come to understand that "not guilty" isn't the same thing as "innocent." One hopes that Ms. Anthony realizes the same thing as she goes off to write the inevitable book and have another baby.