Not guilty....two words that no one expected to hear at the end of the recent Casey Anthony trial. In fact, I would say that shock and outrage was ,and still is, the most common reaction of practically everyone who was interviewed by the media and seems to be the common sentiment across most of the social networking sights as well. People put on their porch lights for Caylee and said many a prayer and poem in her honor and many shed tears. I have to say that it seems to me that they had pretty good evidence against her, in particular the finding of Chloroform through out the trunk and on the body seems to me to be rather damning, along with not telling the police anything for a month, lying to them and going out and partying like a wild woman.....
Here is the problem though, the "evidence" was mostly circumstantial. Compelling? Yes, but still circumstantial.
I personally am appalled by the outcome, but I don't think that you can convict someone on nothing more then circumstantial evidence, there has to be no room for doubt before you convict someone and condemn them to death.
I personally know someone who was convicted for a murder based on " circumstantial " evidence, the problem was that while they may have been guilty of stupidity for hiding evidence and covering for the person who did do it, the person was not guilty of the murder. This proved to be the case when many years later a Judge from the 6th circuit looked at the case and told the state that they had to release him because they had no proof that he was even involved never mind guilty, consequently he was released from prison. There was a lot involved in that case that I won't get into here, but I'll tell you this, if his conviction had come one year later he would have received the death penalty for it.
I was convicted, as a teenager, of a crime that I didn't commit, based on circumstantial evidence as well. There were no witnesses who said that they had seen me and no real evidence except for a sneaker print that was within a "size or two" of my sneakers. The only person that was seen was a guy that I hung around with and as soon as he was arrested he pointed the finger at me. Nothing more then circumstantial evidence.
These two examples are but a small sampling of many a wrongful conviction of crimes both major and minor. Would you want to be the one to convict a person and send them to their death without real solid proof?
Our system of justice is not perfect. Too many times politics ,both national and local, play a part in bringing about a conviction. The media does not help because it goes out of its way to make you believe that a person is guilty just based on being arrested or questioned. They seem to take pleasure in insinuation and innuendo without a single shred of evidence and,as a result, we condemn people before they ever get to trial.
Is she guilty of murder? I believe so, but do I have enough compelling proof to say so 100% ? No, and apparently neither did the jury. You can't convict on a maybe, proof needs to be solid.
Just my humble opinion.
