Not guilty does NOT mean innocent

…at least not in a court of law in the United States.

I have a problem with the legal system here. I haven’t been able to put my finger on it, but something I read today jolted me. “It’s better for 10 criminals to walk free than it is for 1 innocent person to be behind bars.” I don’t agree with this. I can’t. It sits wrong in my gut. I like the idea of “innocent until proven guilty,” but I don’t like the condition of “beyond a reasonable doubt.” What is reasonable? Is it a percentage?

I don’t think the burden of proof should always be on the shoulders of the prosecution. I believe that in cases where circumstantial evidence is sufficient enough, that the defense should have to prove that their client didn’t do the crime.

I am talking about the recent Casey Anthony trial. She was convicted and acquitted of the death of her two-year-old daughter. There are sadly only a few facts in this case:

• Caylee is dead, found with duct tape over her mouth, wrapped in her blanket, stuffed in a garbage bag and discarded near their home.
• The words “how to make chloroform” were found in the search engine of the computer at her home.
• Casey is a proven and convicted liar. She crafted elaborate lies to mislead everyone from investigators to her own parents.
• The made-up nanny that was watching and had kidnapped Caylee on June 16th
• Her employment at Universal Studios
• The phone call on July 15th where she spoke with Caylee
• Telling her co-workers at Universal that her child was missing 
• The many, many other lies that she could not be convicted of:
• Not knowing Caylee’s whereabouts
• Her father abusing her
• Caylee drowned in the swimming pool on June 16th and Casey’s father made it look like murder (really? really??? because murder is better than accidental drowning?!?!?) in order to protect Casey from getting in trouble
• Casey Anthony did not take the stand during the trial, leaving her claim as to how Caylee died unconfirmed.
• Her abnormal behavior during the very month her child was kidnapped/missing/dead:
• Showing NO sorrow or concern that her child was gone
• Continual partying
• Getting a tattoo in Italian stating, “Beautiful Life”
• Casey was the last person to see her daughter alive.
• Casey did not EVER report her daughter missing; the Grandmother did on July 15th.
• Casey’s car was abandoned for over a month and when found reeked of human decomposition.
• A hair proven to have the same familial DNA as Casey, had postmortem banding (meaning it came from a corpse), and was the color of her daughter’s hair was found in the trunk of Casey’s car.
• Traces of chloroform were found in the trunk of Casey’s car.

If the defense’s case is true, why would they not go the route of claiming her unfit for trial? Clearly someone with THAT much denial (they claimed she knew her child had drowned but was hiding from that fact) could be declared insane. How could anyone seriously live in an alternate reality like that (without being on drugs) and NOT be insane?!

Sure, lies cast doubt, and that is precisely what the defense did. But it is enough doubt to disregard evidence, even if it is circumstantial? The medical examiner was not able to determine cause of death, but couldn’t they determine that it WASN’T drowning? Wouldn’t there be traces of chlorine in the body? I understand that cause and motive are vital. I just don’t think everything else can be overlooked. The jury did the best they thought they could with what they were given. One claimed that she did not feel Casey was innocent, but that there was not enough evidence to prove that she WAS guilty.

                   

  

On the top, Casey pre-verdict during the trial: button-up shirts, hair in a bun, defiant, blank stare. Sorry there are so many (at least 11 different days), but it wasn’t hard to find SO many examples of her defiant pout. THAT is NOT the look of innocence. On the bottom, Casey post-trial and after verdict had been given. Notice the dramatic change in her apparel (the low-cut, clingy sweater), appearance, and demeanor from the stone-face of a demure librarian back to a carefree and selfish person. That is the face of someone getting away with murder, not a distraught mother. If she WERE innocent, she would STILL be devastated about losing her daughter. Don't believe me? Try having one and then losing one. Casey Anthony cried after the verdict was read and hugged her attorney. They only other times she cried during the trial where when people would talk about HER; never when Caylee was talked about. 

I have no doubt that Casey was involved in the death of her daughter, and that she got away with whatever she did because her attorneys used a web a lies to cast doubt. Her attorneys claimed that her erratic behavior regarding the death of her daughter, the cover-up, the lies, EVERYTHING was a coping mechanism as a direct result of the claimed abuse from her father. More lies about lies!!! Innocent people WANT to testify. Nobody makes accidents look like murder; what reason would her father have to do that? It’s the other way around. Justice was not served, it was deceived. Any attorney throwing out random and hard-to-believe reasons as to what DID happen just to cause doubt, is guilty of obscuring justice. "While we're happy for Casey, there are no winners in this case," Baez (one of Casey’s attorneys) said. Then he went across the street and drank champagne to celebrate his “non” win. 

So as my title states, Casey was not found guilty, but that does not mean she was innocent. I know that one day she will have to answer to a higher power than a court of law for what happened to this sweet baby girl.