Just to clarify a few misconceptions surrounding the Casey Anthony trial (“Evidence wasn’t there in Anthony trial,” Forum column, Tuesday), the prosecution in a murder case does not have to prove the when, where, why or how. Helpful as these things may be, quite often, the murderer takes steps to preclude their discovery. People have been convicted of murder in cases where the body has never been found.
The fact that the baby's remains yielded no cause of death is not relevant, nor surprising. Had the corpse never been located and the kidnapping story debunked as it was, murder charges still could have been filed. The defendant's lawyers merely confused a malleable jury who appear to have been either short on intellect or unable to follow their instructions, or both.
Additionally, something else needs to be cleared up: All major television networks and The New York Times have stated the mother waited 31 days to report her child missing. It was the grandmother who made the 911 call that forced the issue. I submit, and it should be beyond any reasonable doubt (not to be confused with doubt beyond all reason), that the mother never would have reported the child missing, and that was her aim all along.
To hear people say that this is our justice system working properly is a tough pill to swallow. After reading columnist Clarence Page's piece, I see that he, too, would have been a suitable juror for the defense team. What was lacking was leadership in the jurors’ room.
July 17, 2011
Beating a dead horse but...
From the Columbus Dispatch comes a cogent letter written to the editor which I thought interesting concerning the case that launched a thousand blogposts:
Posted by TS at 3:04 PM