Plan B Forum

Imagine you live in Montana. One cold November night before you go to bed, you look out the bedroom window and see a million stars in a cloudless sky.

The following morning you wake up to bright sunshine. But when you look out the bedroom window, you see that six inches of snow have blanketed the landscape, as far as you can see.

Did it snow during the night? It certainly seems like it must have. But the only way you know is by CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. When you went to bed there was no snow on the ground and no clouds. You didn’t see it snowing during the middle of the night, and it was not snowing when you awoke.

Do you have any “reasonable doubt” that it snowed during the night? There are machines that make snow, after all. Of course, those machines make a lot of noise, and the chances that the entire hundred-square mile landscape could have been sprayed with man-made snow during the night while you slept are, shall we say, rather slim. Or you might have been drugged and kidnapped over night, and transported someplace else where it snowed.

But let me suggest that you do know BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that it snowed during the night. You can IMAGINE a scenario or two in which the landscape you saw might have been caused by something other than normal, natural snowfall, but those scenarios are not reasonable or rational.

I submit that anomalous and seemingly inexplicable jury verdicts such as yesterday’s “not guilty” homicide verdict for Casey Anthony are the result of the jury’s not being able to grasp the relative weight to be accorded “circumstantial evidence,” and its inability to understand the concept of “reasonable doubt.” And of course, defense attorneys do their best to confuse the jury about these concepts so that they will fail to reach the conclusion that their simple native intelligence demands.

The term, “circumstantial evidence” has become equivalent to “unreliable evidence” in our culture, and this is nuts. A significant portion of everything we know is learned by circumstantial evidence.

You don’t actually KNOW that your parents ever did The Nasty, but the evidence is fairly compelling; most people grudgingly accept as fact the idea that mommy and daddy actually Did It, at least once. No scientist has ever seen an atom, measured the distance to any planet, or seen any plant or animal naturally evolve, yet only an idiot would propose that we don’t actually know about these things because our understandings come from circumstantial evidence.

In this Casey Anthony case (which I have studiously ignored until the past day or so), the jury has overlooked a mountain of circumstantial evidence indicating that this woman killed her child, apparently concluding that anything short of a videotape of the act is nothing more than “circumstantial evidence,” and can be dismissed out of hand.

And the fact that she is a young, attractive, promiscuous white woman probably didn’t hurt her any. I certainly would have voted to acquit her.

Disfunctinal juries are a relatively minor problem in the world of what we refer to as "Criminal Justice," but we should be open to suggestions on how the process can be improved. One obstacle to meaningful reform is that most legislators are lawyers and lawyers in general have a vested interest in keeping the system as it is. If the Criminal Justice System were obsessed with finding the TRUTH, lawyers' jobs would be a lot less interesting and and a lot less lucrative.

How can there be any absolute "TRUTH" when the world is colored by perception, experience, and judgment. We are humans, after all. Just the posts on this board demonstrate there are many "truths" and there are very, very, ver few absolutes. Which is why the system we have works -- there is some room for that perception, that experience, that judgment.

You weren't on the jury and you admit you ignored the event, so how are you fit to judge whether or not the jury did their job properly. Plenty of people who watched it in my office thought the prosecution hadn't come close to proving their case. That you admit you'd acquit because she is "a young, attractive, promiscuous white woman" says more about you than the jurors.

Editorial: Beyond every reasonable doubt

The polls showed that a majority of Americans believed Casey Anthony was guilty of killing her daughter, Caylee. One analysis of all the polls that had been taken indicated 91 percent of the people thought Anthony had at least something to do with her daughter’s death.

Then there were the commentators, especially television’s nightly talking heads. They portrayed Anthony as a seemingly heartless narcissist who wanted to party rather than be bothered with mothering and rearing a toddler.

Even Anthony’s lawyer, Jose Baez, characterized her as a liar.

In the end, however, nearly 400 pieces of evidence and almost 100 witnesses during a trial that lasted three months were not enough to convince a jury of seven women and five men that Anthony was guilty of killing 2-year-old Caylee.

It turns out that justice in our great nation is not determined by polls or talk show hosts or even our reputations, no matter how bad. No, guilt is determined in American jurisprudence by removing “every reasonable doubt” that the accused is innocent. It is what sets our criminal justice system apart from all others.

The instructions read to Florida juries, like Circuit Judge Belvin Perry Jr. read to the Anthony trial jury, are explicit: “ … a reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, a speculative imaginary or forced doubt … on the other hand, if after carefully considering, comparing and weighing all the evidence there is not an abiding conviction of guilt, or, if having a conviction, it is one which is not stable but which waivers and vacillates, then the charge is not proved beyond every reasonable doubt and you must find the defendant not guilty because the doubt is reasonable. It is to the evidence introduced in this trial, and to it alone, that you are to look to that proof.”

There is little question the jury’s not-guilty verdicts in the worst of the charges against Anthony will be unpopular with the masses who have followed the three-year criminal case with ardor. And rest assured, those who have turned commenting on the case into a cottage industry will have plenty of unflattering words to say about the jurors and how it was a miscarriage of justice for Caylee that her mother was allowed to walk.

But in all the evidence, all the testimony, all the passionate arguments by prosecutors, there was never one piece of forensic material, not one DNA sample, not one eyewitness who could tie Casey Anthony directly to Caylee Anthony’s death.

Now, what many people will argue is the result of a flawed justice system that lets the guilty walk free among us is actually the finest example of our system of justice working, of the constitutional framework that protects each of us from being falsely accused of a crime.

There are plenty of people who will say Casey Anthony got away with murder. But until the government can produce evidence, the proverbial smoking gun, that can prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Casey Anthony is guilty, she is presumed not guilty in the eyes of our Constitution.

Some will say it is a weakness in our system of jurisprudence. We say it is our greatest constitutional protection against unfair accusation and false conviction.

Ocala.com

See above for "Exhibit A" of my point about lawyers.

Yes, there is an absolute truth in this case, Guin (as there is in 90% of cases). Either she did it or she didn't. And there is no rational person who watched the news unfold who does not know that she did it. Further, it is beyond rational conclusion that her act was in haste or in anger. It was planned, calculated, executed, and supported by a steady stream of lies and deception, even to her own mother and friends. Humans understand that one does not concoct a fictitious "nanny" to hide an accident.

One can argue that the prosecution did not sustain the burden of proof to support a first degree murder conviction - indeed, the jury's verdict seems to so indicate. But as with OJS, she did it and everyone connected with the case - including the jury - knows she did it. No shades of gray. And had the jury had a clear understanding of the concepts of circumstantial evidence and reasonable doubt, she would be looking at whatever Florida does to capital murderers, not just a worst-case couple more years in lockup.

And BTW, just because I didn't follow the news reports as they unfolded does not mean I could not adequately inform myself about the facts of the case and conduct of counsel.

I strongly take issue with that article. Its conclusion is that "The Perfect Crime" is "our greatest constitutional protection against unfair accusation and false conviction." Which is utter nonsense.

The absence of forensic evidence is nothing more than the absence of forensic evidence. Crimes have been committed without leaving any forensic evidence. Does that mean that exoneration of the perpetrators is a good thing?

Ridiculous.

[aside] While I rarely agree with dgs perspectives, I admire the way he is prepared to put his views on the line when starting topics. [/aside]

Well, I didn't have much of an opinion on this since as Guin said, I wasn't there at the trial. However, the medical examiner for this case has come forward;

Dr. Jan Garavaglia, or Dr. G, as she's known to fans of her TLC series "Dr. G: Medical Examiner."

...I, am one of those fans, have been for years. While I don't watch CSI [insert city here] or any other crime drama, because of the phoniness and errors they always have; Dr. G. has had decades of forensic experience, and her show is shot in her average, ordinary lab with real technicians. This doctor is extremely meticulous, with a wealth of knowledge; in fact, the reason she got her own show was because of her renown in the field of difficult autopsies.
How anyone had the gall to call her work 'shoddy' at this trial; just stuns me.

Now, Dr. G's testimony may not have provided evidence of who committed the crime;

"My job is not to determine who did it," Garavaglia explained during a Thursday morning interview on TODAY. "My job is to determine what happened. So I feel very strongly that we could say this was a homicide — death by the hands of another. My job is not to point the finger at one person or another."

...but, if she says this was a homicide, and not an accident, then I believe the child was murdered. This jury may have pronounced Casey Anthony, not guilty, but where is the evidence of anyone else committing this crime?

Just a further note, when Dr. G. testifies she is not paid to be there. At any trial, she is called to, she makes it a professional point to not accept any money. On the other hand, the pathologist Dr. Werner Spitz, was paid for his opinion that Dr. G's autopsy was 'shoddy'.

Going back and reading some of his statements; I'm very surprised that some of his claims are just flat out wrong;

[Dr. Spitz] starts to talk about death by drowning,since they had a pool in the backyard, and checking for the presence of diatomes. But, he says, you take some water,spin it down, in a centrifuge, look to see what has settled at the bottom of the test tube and examine it for diatomes.

Click on the video in the link above, and Dr. G. explains why that wouldn't work.