Conservative Daily News - The best news, analysis and opinion articles written by a collection of citizen journalists. Covering a range of important topics in blogs, op-ed, and news posts, these upstanding patriots are bringing back American exceptionalism with every entry..

Casey Anthony, Not Guilty! Well Kinda

“If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit” seems appropriate as the news media pounces Casey Anthony’s jurors for making what they consider the wrong decision. In the court of public opinion, she is guilty! As the news media creates the newest reality star, they did not fall short on the accusations of the flaws within our judicial system.

If you were on trial, where would you fall within the realm of media scrutiny? Would you be treated as guilty until proven innocent or on the elite pedestal of innocence? Whether you were guilty or not, would you receive media protection or scrutiny? Most of us fall into the guilty until proven innocent category whereas the media treat us as a hindrance. As with Casey Anthony, a jury of her peers found her “Not Guilty” of first-degree murder. It reminds me of the media circus for OJ Simpson, Michael Jackson and Scott Peterson trials. They harped over the alleged injustices for the victims of OJ and Michael. It seemed that the spin was how the media viewed the individuals. With Scott Peterson convicted to death row, his story did not prove the flaws of our court system. So, they moved on.

Meanwhile, Hollywood figures like Roman Polanski, a 43-year old moviemaker, who was convicted of raping a 13-year old, gets a pass. In 1977, he fled the nation prior to his sentencing that could have been up to 50 years. Whereas, the elites are protesting for charges to be dropped, they even correct the charge from rape to “unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.” Do you wonder if you would get this much support from the Hollywood elites or the media?

With the Casey Anthony case, she was not presumed innocent but she was found NOT GUILTY. The media pundits blame the court system and the 12 jurors that did not run the right script. Could it have been the prosecutor’s inability attempt to get the death penalty? They placed the death penalty and then expect people to disregard death as a possibility in determining the verdict. Please. The prosecutors have massive resources and were still unable to present a solid case. To send her to death on the evidence that was presented would have been a sin. They couldn’t even determine the cause of death.

In 1994, Susan Smith drowned her two sons in a South Carolina lake. She was convicted in July 1995. Just three months later, OJ Simpson would be found not guilty. It appears that our media is eagerly awaiting the next court case so they can justify the flaws within our judicial system. Here we have another infamous mother to add to our list of Susan Smith, Andrea Yates and China Arnold.

HLN’s ratings during this episode boosted from a typical 283,000 people watching to 5.2 million. Apparently, Americans aren’t so glued to the boring TV as we’re led to believe…but I digress.

Actually, our civilian judicial system is something to be proud of. It is a jury of your own peers that must come to a unanimous decision in determining your conviction. It must be beyond a reasonable doubt. This is much better than some bureaucrat or media pundit who has political gains or ratings to decide. The prosecutor did not make the case, simple as that. But the mobocracy wants someone’s death for Caylee Anthony’s, ginned up by the media. To say she was a liar or a narcissist might be an understatement. For her lying and deceitfulness, she did her time.

As our media questions our judicial (trial) system, ask yourself whether the media should be questioned. As they appear to be in the bag for the establishment, convicting and enticing the mob. You could get Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Keith Olbermann or Bill O’Reilly as judge and jury but we don’t. Our judicial system may not be perfect, but being judged by our peers truly makes it the best system in the world.

Conservative Daily News allows a great deal of latitude in the topics contributors choose and their approaches to the content. This is due to our approach that citizens have a voice, not only the mass media. Readers will likely not agree with every contributor or every post, but find reasons to think about the topic and respond with comments. We value differing opinions as well as those that agree. Opinions of contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of CDN, Anomalous Media or staff. Click here if you'd like to write for CDN.
Put This Story in your Circles and Share with your Friends

Tags: , , , , ,

Comments (0)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. DocFord says:

    I have to disagree, at least in part, with the good doctorhugo.

    Many murder trials go forward successfully without direct eyewitness testimony. Prosecutors typically must rely on a combination of some physical evidence and a lot of circumstantial evidence in order to get a conviction. Here, the prosecution waited until the body was found before pressing forward. The dump site was where the majority of the physical evidence was found, with some corroborating physical evidence found during searches of the Anthony homes. The circumstantial evidence combined with the physical evidence was insufficient to sustain a first degree murder conviction. The prosecutor over reached. Another factor playing into this is that the jury members probably watched too much CSI and were looking for forensic evidence that is rarely seen in a real homicide case.

    However, the evidence was more than sufficient to garner a manslaughter conviction. The state should have proceeded under a theory of involuntary manslaughter. The fact pattern that best fits the evidence is that Casey Anthony accidentally overdosed Caley on chloroform and then panicked. It is highly likely that this was not the first time she put her to sleep with chloroform. If you look closely at the baby/toddler photos that were continuously shown on TV, in the later ones the child has puffiness and dark circles under the eyes. Some also show her with a slightly dazed look. That’s typical of chronic chloroform usage.

    • doctorhugo says:

      Ah ha! Doctor Ford. I acknowledged that very reality by my comment regarding…
      “the prosecution MUST make their case based upon OVERWHELMING circumstantial evidence.”

      Without so stating my case as to specifics I would suggest that my admonition that…
      “Individuals are responsibility for the consequences of their actions OR LACK THEREOF.”
      would cover such a possibility as you bring forth and is one reason I believe this crime had to be a familial cover-up. However, the prosecution to be fair, did not make ANY kind of convincing case for any of the possibilities of death. They asked questions of the jurors seeking to lead their thinking to make up for what they didn’t have. I’m no lawyer, but much of the proscution’s behavior in trying to direct the jury could have been twarted by the judge. I believe he does have such latitude, but resisted such as he did not want to open grounds for any challenge.

      • doctorhugo says:

        Just an afterthought observation Doc Ford, but i too think the state went about this prosecution in the wrong way. Had they gone for a second degree murder conviction, they may have well had the option to agree to a reduced charge of voluntary OR involuntary manslaughter By putting all charges on the table at the outset they put heavy pressure ON THEMSELVES to meet the standards for conviction in the JUROR’s minds, which are after all…the only ones that count. I firmly believe that the defense was shocked, as shocked as the prosecution, at the acquittal on all the serious death counts. I think they relied on getting that one juror who wouldn’t relent to hang the jury itself. To do so the defense through all manner of sh*t up against the courthouse walls and…obviously, judging from the result, some of it STUCK!

  2. Brian Evans says:

    You’re reference to intelligence has no basis, so we should refrain from determining a person’s intelligence through their position on this verdict. Besides, it detracts from the debate.

    The Prosecution was a complete failure and their failure was highlighted by the media. The media ginned up a mobocracy. What are the evidence/facts that proves she killed her?

  3. Melanie says:

    Cause of death is not needed for a murder conviction. Scott Peterson was convicted and sentenced to death, and there was much less evidence in that case then in this one. I would really question the intelligence of someone who thinks the evidence did not prove casey is guilty of murdering caylee. I would love to hear a reasonable explanation for all of the evidence/facts that does not point to casey killing caylee.

    • doctorhugo says:

      I must come down on Mr. Evans’ side as being accurate. if you ever have the honor to sit on a capital crimes case as a juror you will be overcome by the awesome responsibility such imposes upon you. Your observations of, for example, a Casey Anthony’s demeanor and proven lies will be tempered by the understanding and obligation YOU HAVE to ascertain that the prosecution had made it’s case BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. To do this without actual corroborating witness testimony in a capital crime event the prosecution MUST make their case based upon OVERWHELMING circumstantial evidence. Innuendo and suggestion does NOT make that high standard. The jury rejection of ALL the lesser options proved to me that they functioned at a higher level than ALL the professional talking heads on the boob-tube who stoked OUR EMOTIONS. The statue of blind justice is cloaked so as not to be able to see as a reminder to rule devoid of emotion and based upon facts presented ONLY.

      For the record I believe that she was guilty and is a sociopath and pathological liar who was given cover by BOTH her parents and wrongfully so. I make my PERSONAL judgement based upon what facts were presented and her pattern of behavior, but realize that is merely my conjecture. Individuals are responsibility for the consequences of their actions OR LACK THEREOF. Having stated that…, neither MY BELIEF SYSTEM CONCLUSION nor YOURS is the legal standard to be met. And thankfully so!