I Do Not Understand the Casey Anthony Case from Planck's Constant

Some of my readers have emailed me asking why I have not blogged about the Casey Anthony Trial. The answer is simple. The whole case stinks. Something bad happened but circumstantial evidence cannot give anyone the certainty to convict for First Degree murder. Let me tell you my reasonable doubt.

If I were a woman who wanted to be rid of a two and a half-year old child and there was a pool in the back yard, then it would be a simple thing to simply take her into the pool and let her drown. The CDC tells us that two children die in accidental drownings every single day. She would have been rid of her child and there would have been very little chance of being convicted of murder.

As for the chloroform aspect of the trial, that is totally absurd - who needs chloroform to subdue any child younger than seven years old?

As for Caylee being killed to shut her up, that's even more absurd. Casey is a pathological liar, she doesn't care what others say or how reality contradicts her lies. She couldn't care less about being contradicted by her daughter. Recall that when she lied about her job as an event planner at Universal Studios, she led police to a building on the Universal lot and down a hallway and up to the door until she finally turned around admitted she didn't work there. All the way there she hoped they would just stop and say, "OK we don't have to go further, we believe you." She likewise would have deluded herself that Caylee would pose no problem regarding her lies.

As for her being happy her child was dead, so what? A good percentage of mothers regret that they had children and would be more than happy if their child died. If you don't know that, you don't get around enough.

As for the duct-tape, who needs duct-tape to kill a child less than three years old? It doesn't make sense.

If you want to imprison a woman for being a bad mother, fine, I have no problem with that, but executing anyone on circumstantial evidence is just as immoral as murdering a child. I have read thousands of murder cases and circumstantial evidence has convicted more than a few hundred innocent people of murder.

If I were on the jury, the worst I would convict her of would be Aggravated child abuse, and that only grudgingly. I don't like her, I don't like the way she acted when her daughter was missing, I think she is a horrible mother and a pathological liar. But that may be simply a chemical imbalance and doesn't make one a murderer.

I cannot understand nor do I believe everything that is purported by the prosecution to have really happened. In fact, the prosecution never explained to me what really happened. The prosecution lies and distorts evidence in almost all criminal cases anyway, that's the reality.

If you feel your blood pressure rising thinking about this case, then you have not approached this case objectively. Of course, on an emotional level we all want to punish Casey for what happened to her daughter. But that is just mob talk. We should be more civilized.

Just my two cents.

Update 7 July 2011

Looks like the jury had the same problem I did and only convicted her of lying to the police. Although this verdict is emotionally unpleasant for many, I believe it is the right verdict in this case.