To just about everyone’s shock, dismay, and even anger, Casey Anthony was found not guilty in the death of her daughter. Immediately after the jury delivered their verdict, armchair attorneys began analyzing the case, trying to determine what went wrong.
Did the prosecution stumble? Did they over-reach? Should they have pursued a lesser charge? Should they have pursued the same charge but not sought the death penalty?
Was the defense just too strong? (During the trial, not a few observers referred to Anthony’s lead defense lawyer Josï¿½ Baez as Josï¿½ Bozo.)
Did the jury misunderstand their charge? Were they somehow duped by Anthony?
Now, after the dust has begun to settle, some jury members have revealed that they did not in any way believe Casey Anthony was innocent, but they didn’t feel the prosecution had presented enough evidence to convict her.
This raises another factor; the type and quality of the evidence presented.
In this day of graphic and tech-filled TV crime shows, some people have come to believe that every case must be settled with conclusive, proof-positive DNA evidence. We’ve become used to seeing crime scene detectives and forensic pathologists answering any and all questions about a case in precise detail, without hesitancy, in neat forty-two minute segments, one hour if you include commercials.
Perhaps we don’t understand that real criminal investigations aren’t usually so cut-and-dried and that “beyond a reasonable doubt” doesn’t mean “beyond any doubt.”
In any case, those who were disappointed by the outcome of the Casey Anthony trial may have to be content with the knowledge that, as one observer put it, “Karma is a bitch.”