Can someone tell me when referring to the Casey Anthony trial, do you agree with the findings of the court? Why or why not? can you please draw up a list of the evidence that was provided at trial and determine whether each piece of evidence was physical (real) evidence and what pieces of evidence would you have found critical in determining the truth of the case that was not provided? Why?
The case is perplexing because the physical evidence is thin but irrefutable, and the motive is obscure. The facts that Casey lied so early and so frequently to the investigators, and the bogus story of the baby-sitter, together with the shadow of fatherly abuse to Casey, leave no alternative explanation for the child’s disappearance. The legal term “reasonable doubt” does not fully explain the jury’s decision, since no other explanation that covers all the facts can be seen as “reasonable.” Of course, the law does not require the testimony of the accused, but common sense (not a legal term) tells us that a “loving mother” (also not a legal term) would want to testify in order to clarify the events, repair her earlier lies to the police, and find the real killer. There can be no “accident” that would explain the physical, material evidence of the trunk (dog-sniffing of a cadaver, hairs found, etc.), the abandoned car, or the body found in the woods. At some point a jury should look at the real world and make some logical deductions (probably not a legal term, either). Casey Anthony (and probably her father) know “the truth” (a legal term? No) and their moral fiber is too weak to come clean on what may have been an accident during an illegal act. Perhaps most egregious is the “not guilty” judgment to the “child neglect” charge – how neglected does a child have to be??