The Casey Anthony Case: Disturbing Questions Remain

Since the mainstream media frenzy has continued almost a week after the jury rendered its verdict in the Casey Anthony trial and subsequent sentencing, with no fewer than a dozen prime time cable news programs dedicated to dissecting this case and its three year investigation, I thought I would also set forth my post mortem on this highly publicized Florida case (which seems to be one state that has had more than its share) and the questions I and many have remaining which have not been satisfactorly answered.

Before I pose my questions, it has been interesting in just how many people are now coming out of the woodwork in order to capitalize on this case to be "reimbursed" for their costs, in addition to most of the cable news networks with their massive profits on this case, for their investigative work during the time Casey Anthony was leading law enforcement officials down blind alleys while the search for CAYLEE was expanding but just never seemed to be concentrated by any of those private and public investigative units less than a quarter mile from her home where little Caylee's body was eventually found.

I mean three long years ago, weren't those private companies representing that their services were being donated?

And just who was paying for her defense costs other than the Florida taxpayers?

Be that as it may, I guess the most glaring and obvious error to me was simply in the charges which were filed against her, which were never amended after her "arrest."

Instead of first degree murder charges, for which there was little evidence to begin with, or aggravated manslaughter, doesn't Florida have a statute that deals with negligent homicide? Or, since Ms. Anthony clearly admitted to lying to investigators about Caylee's whereabouts and had no idea where her child was after a full month, what about child abandonment or accessory to murder given the eventual discovery of her body six months later?

Why were those charges never amended to reflect at least charges which the prosecutor had a better chance of even proving, given the evidence he was relying on for a conviction?

I am once again wondering about not only America's criminal justice system and court procedures in capital offenses such as this one, but also the education of our lawyers which also seems to have been missed.

And given that Ms. Anthony will be free on Sunday, from my understanding although she was charged and arrested, wasn't she also then placed in a protective custody situation given the media coverage of this investigation where there were concerns for her safety within the prison population while she was awaiting trial? So in actually, has she really ever spent any real time in "jail?"

And what about those recorded "jailhouse tapes" where the family was recorded while she was in custody, but had as yet to be charged with a felony even. Just why were those tapes allowed into evidence to begin with, given that I'm sure there was no permission sought to release those tapes to the public and were also highly publicized by most of those cable news stations while the investigation was ongoing?

There is so much troubling in this case and its prosecution and defense, and its media coverage, that if I was one of those conspiracy theorists it seemed as if this "trial" resembled more than anything some of those "mock" trials that are held during most law students' studies.

Who is going to profit from this case, other than Ms. Anthony, for any of those exclusive interviews that have also been bantered about when she is released on Sunday, within a week of this highly publicized trial, by those whose post mortems are geared more toward upping the ante for these cable news networks for the lucky "winner" of that all important first person interview?

I wonder, will Barbara Walters or Diane Sawyer get that coveted prize?

And now the media is focused on the legal challenges to the judge's ruling on sealing the names of the jurors in this case, with civil rights lawyers and "corporate" lawyers representing the media flooding the courts with requests to have those jurors names released, basing their arguments that "it has always been done" that such names are a matter of public record.

And that "Constitutionally" this is a "right" to have those names made available.

For what purpose, any reasonable person would ask?

To harass those jurors, whose task involved hearing the evidence and facts as presented to them in order to make their determinations on the only charges which they were given?

Jurors are not public officials, they are private citizens who are merely serving in a public capacity so long as the jury is needed.

From that point on, after rendering their verdicts, they are private citizens and it should be they, and they alone, who agree through the courts to having their names made public "after the fact," in this writer's opinion.

It seems to me that the coverage lately has been to now target those jurors with all the media attention given those unhappy Americans with this verdict, whose behavior seemed more of the "vigilante" style of justice.

I even read an article about one unidentified juror who has since moved out of the state, and whose husband has related that this juror would rather go to prison than serve on another jury in a capital murder case.

Maybe this is the agenda after all.

Malign our jury system, so that the jury then falls out of favor in this country through mass media propaganda and those privatized prisons can then get a steady stream of inmates for profit fed through judge determined verdicts, with the state then acting as both prosecutor and jury for the accused.

With the one barrier then removed against governmental abuse, what with all the progressive laws which have occurred at both the state and federal levels which have no Constitutional basis whatsoever in so many areas it is astounding.

I mean I once served on a jury whose sole purpose appeared to me to "convict" the accused so that my former home state could then receive its federal grant monies for targeted offenses to continue to balance then its court budgets, and during which time a judge instructed the jury that they were precluded from even visiting the scene of the "crime" involved and needed to make our determination without such information, and only based upon the provided statute involved, and testimony of the accused - the only witness, although another individual was present at the time the offense occurred.
Seemed quite strange to me also that on my jury of six there were not one, not two, but four city/county officials on the jury panel even with only two of us "civilians."

Maybe instead of the names of jurors being provided, their occupations might be more enlightening in seeing just how many of those selected are not "peers" at all, but government employees.

The progression of this trial, and its media coverage which has been the prime time focus of more than one cable news station consistently in analyzing every facet of the case, has left me with the uneasy feeling that what went on in that courtroom had nothing to do with discovering the truth of this young toddler's disappearance and then claimed "murder", but a whole lot more.

Several Florida legislators are now proposing new legislation, based simply on the outcome of this case, in order to make it a criminal matter to NOT report a child missing based on this one case in which, to me, the proper charges against this woman were not even filed under which the prosecution had at least a good chance for a conviction.

I can now see now all those parents of ten year old runaways who run away from home after a spat with their parents, and who are then picked up by police then get brought up on charges of "failure to report."

Do you really think someone such as Casey Anthony would comply if there was such a law, based upon what actually occurred in this case?

I think not.

And I guess what is really most disturbing about this case is that nothing whatsoever makes sense from the outset of the investigation, then through the mock trial.

But I'm sure either Barbara or Diane will fill us in.

At least, the mainstream media version.

As a postscript: Not that it matters much at this point, but since Casey Anthony did admit to having been employed by Universal Studios, I couldn't help noticing that she also resembled some of those Snow Whites or princess characters hired by Disney at their theme parks.

Casey Anthony Acquitted: Media Frenzy Lives On

With yesterday's reported "surprise" decision of the jury in the acquittal of Casey Anthony on the charges of first degree murder, manslaughter, and aggravated child abuse, it has come as no surprise to this reader that the media frenzy which has been the hallmark of this case, continues.

After all, the media and talking heads on cable news set this entire trial up for such reactions by the entire manner in which the reporting of this case, its investigation and prosecution, progressed over the past three years.

What has completely amazed and shocked me was not the outcome of the trial and the jury's determination, since there was no conclusive evidence or eyewitnesses to just what had occurred brought forth during the weeks long trial, merely spectulation and supposition, but the reactions of the press and those legal analysts, lawyers and judges which has not abated but has been fed and accelerated.

People, again, who should know better.

After all, our entire justice system is grounded in affording juries in the jurisdiction in which the alleged acts occurred to make the determination insofar as the fate of the accused (although this trial was moved , also) based on the FACTS AND EVIDENCE presented - not emotional appeals, nor fabricated testimony or suppositions.

And this trial was full of them, so much so that the trial itself mimicked Ms. Anthony's behavior during the initial stages and investigation of her daughter's disappearance.

Circumstantial evidence, contrary to those talking heads and legal analysts, is not a firm enough basis in which to convict someone of premeditated, first degree murder. It didn't take a CSI DNA investigation, but simply tying in all those loose ends on the evidence, such as the duct tape, or the chloroform searches, to the suspect.

That didn't occur in any fundamental way in which a jury could find for guilt "within a reasonable doubt."

Mark Furhrmann, and other "lawyers" who have also weighed in with their outrage, in this former legal professional's opinion, should be disbarred.

After all, a jury of one's peers is the hallmark of our American judicial system, and it is THEY, not the lawyers or even the judges, who have had their say and have submitted their verdict.

For those that continue to bash this decision, and Ms. Anthony's perceived guilt, let it be said that after all the publicity this trial has engendered, I seriously doubt she will have a carefree lifestyle, or reap tremendous wealth hereafter on some book or TV movie which might be made. And if so, I believe her 15 minutes of fame will be short-lived, and will not last past the next high profile crime or news story.

Maybe she should speak to O.J. Simpson for enlightenment on just how well his life has gone after his high profile acquittal, since this trial was so very similar in both the media attention involved, and post mortems.

I hope Ms. Anthony gets the help she needs, and goes on to live a life of anonymity and eventually realizes just how lucky and fortunate that it was a jury verdict that was rendered due to the really poor investigative work of detectives after her daughter was reported missing (over six months to find this child's body, found a short distance from her parent's home?), and the leads and work of the prosecution (no fingerprints AT ALL on that duct tape?).

The jury has spoken.

America, CNN, FOX, Nancy Grace, Mr. Fuhrmann get a life and recognize America's justice system has been wrong based on circumstantial evidence in the past on many, many occasions, and as those founders believed "better one guilty man to go free, than one spend a day behind bars (not to mention pay the highest price under our criminal justice system).

The ultimate judge will have his due eventually, and already knows the truth, and will render HIS verdict.

The Casey Anthony Trial: High Political Legal Drama?

This past six weeks and so very similar to the O.J. Simpson murder trial, America and Americans have been force fed almost daily the high political drama and details of the disappearance of Caylee Anthony, and subsequent farce of a trial of the woman charged with murdering her young daughter, Casey Anthony, in a Florida courtroom and broadcast nationwide day after day.

Even on the 4th of July, this trial has overshadowed America's Independence Day celebrations, with no less than five or six lawyers or judges on many of the cable news stations analyzing body language, trial testimony and offering up their opionions, legal or otherwise, as far as the guilt or innocense of Ms. Anthony.

A brother weeping on the stand testifying about how hurt he was at not being informed of his sister's pregnancy.

A father who has been alleged to have abused his daughter, and whose personal life also has been the subject of speculation.

A mother who was at work at the time, but who was highly involved apparently in the raising of her grandchild and at times appeared to be more mother to Caylee than Casey.

Another overblown murder trial for the benefit of an increasingly intrusive media into America's courtrooms, since this is a Florida state murder trial and crime against the state, although is being broadcast not simply in this country nationwide, but even abroad for other nefarious purposes.

I mean crime is money to these media types, and a great profit generator.

Much also has been said about the "standing room only" lines to get one of those coveted seats in the courtroom. And even one member of the public was charged with contempt of court for not following the judicially determine courtroom decorum during this public drama.

The jury is now out, after receiving their rather lengthy jury instructions.

And before the jury is in, I'd like to add my opinion since the opinions of so many have been publicized by those who should know better, those in the legal profession who have used also this trial to build their broadcast careers most of all.

Much of my opinion is also based on supposition, which is hardly a legal standard but mine just might have a little more credence than some of the outlandish scenarios set forth by both the prosecution and defense in this case.

Ms. Anthony is guilty of involuntary manslaughter, if anything, since no direct physical evidence was ever presented which would render a capital murder charge even remotely possible.

But that doesn't mean that this particular jury will not so find, as publicized as this trial has become.

No charge of malicious intent or "malice aforethought" was ever set forth, or proven. No eyewitnesses. No physical evidence other than a "smell" or some duct tape found "around" the site Caylee's body was found.

Perhaps Ms. Anthony, as immature as her behavior was both before and after the events surround this charge, should never have been a mother to begin with.

Perhaps she had both an overbearing mother and father herself, and has issues of her own which truly need addressing if she is ever to mature, or become a mother again.

It certainly appeared that way due to the center stage her own father and mother have played in this drama.

I wonder if she was raised a Catholic, and thus the option of an early abortion, or birth control were simply out of the question.

Maybe she felt having this child might bring her closer to a mother and father whom she could never please, no matter how hard she tried.

As has occurred in many homes across America both in the past and presently in the increase also of single mothers and parents not simply due to divorce, but also family pressures.

And where has the father of this child also been? Contrary to the sexual abuse charges, neither father nor brother fathered Ms. Anthony's child, so just who and where is he?

However, none of the above would justify or explain away a child's death.

Most likely from the little I followed the trial and case in its earlier stages before my time and interests lie elsewhere, my conclusion is as follows:

Ms. Anthony found single parenting not to be what she envisioned as an unmarried, young 25 year old. Her mother worked, and could not help with the day to day care of her grandchild, and Ms. Anthony hardly made enough to support her and this child after she moved out of her parent's home.

She was unemployed for the most part, yet hardly had the free time then to also date as most girls her age do, if she had no backup during the days or evenings during the week.

An overindulged child herself with a working mother, and policeman father, she decided she wanted to party and searched the internet in order to find a way to make chloroform, a sleeping agent, so that her young daughter would sleep while she was out in the evenings and early morning.

She used too much, nor was she around to check on her daughter then to even see if she was still breathing after she left for the night. Perhaps her parents did not approve of her life style while living in their home.

Arriving home, she found her daughter dead or in a coma, and panicked placing her in the trunk of her car until she could figure out what to do, concocting story after story when her parents inquired about her daughter's whereabouts.

Finally, she dumped the body when she had the time to think things through, until her car was then towed and her parents had to pick it up from the tow lot, with Cindy Anthony then hoping against hope that her daughter's continued lies were truth, not wishing to believe the worst of her own daughter, and flesh and blood - or maybe feeling somewhat responsible also, due to the state of their relationship at the time of Caylee's disappearance.

The rest the nation then was made privy too, unwillingly or not, as the hot story of the moment unfolded and due to the adorable pictures of this young toddler, and the high drama itself of this dysfunctional family - again, not unlike many in this country with the growing number of absentee parents for whatever reason, but mostly economic.

Will Casey beat a capital murder charge due to all the hype this past six weeks?

I wouldn't bet on it.

This story has been so juicy, and so profitable for so very many.

I expect that a capital murder conviction will be returned, if only to give the lawyers at least ten to twenty more years to go through the appeals process.

While Ms. Anthony is, of course, in jail where she would most likely be anyway under an involuntary manslaughter charge in order for the state to then also, in the end, get their due on the expense of this six week exercise in American "justice."

But I may be as wrong as all those political analysts, "judges" and "lawyers" who followed and put their spins on this story for six very long weeks.

Happy Independence Day, America, just in case you forgot.

Sedona and Tucson: Who Decides?

This week other than the Egyptian crisis, there have been two stories which were carried in the mainstream media which also demonstrates how regional news and stories get buried by the big box media in the second or third pages of most American newspapers, even less than a month or year after the events.

One was the pending trial of the Jim Jones of Sedona, James Arthur Ray, who was the leader of a for profit organization of "Spiritual Warriors" and Californian who was conducting a lucrative retreat in Sedona, Arizona in which two women and a man perished after being mentally browbeaten from leaving a plastic tent filled with other devotees a little over a year ago and died of suffocation and heat related illness.

The other, of course, was the accused from the Tucson massacre, Jared Loughner, and his trial in which it was recently also reported that due to the fact that he is charged with both federal and state crimes in the incident in which Mr. Loughner used a 9mm Glock (an automatic police weapon) in order to gun down six people, including a federal judge and U.S. Congresswoman, Gabrielle Giffords, it may take "years" for his case to wind through the criminal justice system.

So much for speedy trials, in which the true evidence may be still fresh.

What is interesting about both these cases is the politics which are occurring with respect to the prosecution of them, and just who has jurisdiction and who will be responsible for determining these two individual's fate.

The Sedona incident occurred in Yavapai County, Arizona in a California style "new age" community, and was allegedly committed by an out state resident in which most of the attendees of this paid event were also not Arizona residents, but from the East Coast, Midwest or California. Apparently, due to the media coverage the defense wishes to move this case out of Yavapai County and into Maricopa County (Phoenix) so that the accused can be assured of a "fair trial," in the hopes that Phoenix or Phoenicians would be more likely to be unbiased with respect to the facts and evidence in the case.

Although would state as a former Arizonan, that the media coverage of what occurred shortly thereafter and the interviews with the victims' families were carried far more in the metro Phoenix papers than those in Yavapai County, and those in Yavapai County most likely would not know personally any of the victims.

Witness costs also would not be impacted, since most of the witnesses also were out state residents from all reports.

Mr. Ray's actions brought shame to the State of Arizona, a state in which such an unregulated commercial enterprise could even occur by one who had no medical training or had any true knowledge of even the spiritual practices behind his highly publicized and profitable venture.

Two women were killed, and one older man. Women have far fewer sweat glands than men and thus do not biologically have the means to cool down their bodies, which is why such practices by the American Indian community were restricted to males as a "rite of male passage" into adulthood, and in which a tribal healer was always present.

Our Constitution does specially provide that in any capital offense, the trial must be held in the jurisdiction in which the crime occurred, if the accused is a U.S. citizen and the victims also U.S. citizens.

Mr. Loughner's crime, of course, was witnessed by a great many, all Arizonans.

Mr. Loughner himself was an Arizonan from Tucson and so were all of his victims, whether governmental or civilian, a life is a life.

And the loss of that life at the hands of another is a matter of state, not the federal government.

Between the border situation, and now Mr. Loughner's crimes, it appears the federal government is perhaps failing to carry out its true functions under our Constitution (such as securing our porous and exposed southern borders), while then prosecuting a case which ocurred within state borders that just may have been the result of the political arena and climate in the community in which it occurred.

After all, it did occur at a political event, and purportedly a politician was one of the targets along with other Arizonans. All of the witnesses are Arizonans from Tucson.

If this crime was in no way political, as so many in the media have stated, but merely committed by a "disturbed" loner, and man-child as has been written and widely publicized, then why is the trial now becoming so very, very political?

Rather than Constitutional?