As I have stated before; part of the reason I started doing this blog was in the hopes of getting replies and starting conversations. And that is still what I would like. One of results of getting replies is to help give me reasons to write.
Before I get to that I would like to thank whoever Anonymous is. And I hope that even though they disagree with me that they will read my blog again and post a response when they feel one is necessary as I hope others will do also.
Today I have received a response from an Anonymous and it is a great reply to my recent post. I tried to copy the whole thing here but it really messed up my formatting. There should be a link for the response underneath my last posting if you want to see the whole reply to my post.
I will specifically type the questions that Anonymous asked and answer them.
1. In the prosecutions case, when did Caylee die?--- There was no specific date for Caylee's death. But isn't reasonable to conclude that she died within the time she was said to be last seen and the day her remains were found? I don't think that a specific date for Caylee's death was needed. Just the fact that Caylee's body was found in the swamp area near the Anthony's home was sufficient enough to show she was killed. Yes, it is possible that Caylee death was an accident or natural; but wouldn't the family have said something way before Casey was arrested? And if the death was natural or an accident why would the family leave the body where it was found?
2. In the prosecutions case, where did Caylee die?---- Unless, I missed something the prosecution did not specifically say where Caylee was killed. I don't think the where was as important as the how Caylee was killed. However, I believe it is reasonable to conclude that Caylee died somewhere between the Anthony home and where Caylee was found.
3. In the prosecutions case, how did Caylee die?---- The coroner, Dr Jan G(I have no clue how to spell the rest of her last name) said that there was no way to exactly conclude how Caylee died. Yes, it would have helped the state's case to specifically answer how she died. But is is not reasonable to conclude that a child that age with no known health issues died from an accident or was killed? I think that the state did a good job of proving that Casey looked up chloroform on the family's computer. How many people do searches for chloroform and what positive reason could they have for doing that? I believe that it is reasonable to conclude that Casey had a specific reason for doing that search and a specific reason for doing so.
4. How can you jump from lying to the police to murder?----- Name me one plausible, legal reason she had to lie to the police. She had a specific reason for doing that and I believe it is reasonable to conclude that she knew what really happened to Caylee.
5. What you are repeating is the theory from Mr Ashton in the prosecutions closing arguments. So lets convict someone on a theory.--- Yes, sometimes that is necessary. It was a circumstantial case I believe that most people knew that before the trial began. In this case there was no "smoking chloroform", if you will. I would guess that a good percentage of murder cases are circumstantial. I know of cases which were successfully prosecuted without even a body. Unfortunately, this is where "circumstantial" and "reasonable doubt" collide. Unfortunately, when our founding fathers formed the constitution there was no way for them to foresee what this country would really become and I am sure that they would be absolutely shocked at the possibility of a mother murdering her child. So you are right that I should not be upset with the constitution. But by now, the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt is not really a viable standard. It is one of, if not THE main reasons defendants are overly protected by the justice system.
I believe the prosecution could have done a better job; especially during the closing argument. No matter how sleazy and without honor Jose Baez is; under the system we have he did a good job of throwing every theory he could out there in the hopes that one would stick and I believe one did work. I disagree with many in that I don't get why an a defendant accused of a felony should not have to prove their innocence. A defendant should be required to prove their innocence and I don't understand why it is not that way.And honestly, I don't understand why a defendant accused of doing something wouldn't want to prove their innocence.
I believe that Casey Anthony is guilty of murdering Caylee. I have not heard or read of anyone who truly believes she is innocent. I believe that when someone who is guilty of committing a crime especially murder is acquitted, something is wrong with the system. And a guilty person getting away with murder is as wrong as wrong can get.
But at this point in time, what baffles and saddens me the most is that it seems that most people are willing to just shrug their shoulders and basically say "well, its the law of the land so what can you do?". Something is very wrong with the outcome of the Casey Anthony case and yet, most people just want to move on with their lives and forget that there is a murderer among us. Caylee is dead and no one will be held accountable for it.
And at this moment in time, I am not proud to be an American. I am sad that no one seems to really want this wrong righted. And I am the only person who seems to believe that the justice system has let us down.
No comments:
Post a Comment