Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Arguments in Favor of the Casey Anthony Verdict


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

32 comments:

Kathy in Texas said...

I agree with all statements (or lack there of) above :)

Pat Brown said...

Thanks, Kathy! I spent the better part of my evening yesterday working on this blog post and I am glad that you like it.

FRG said...

Mrs. Brown,

Thank you! Your article says it all! LOL

I am reading your book "The Profiler" and I am loving it! You are so smart!

James said...

You missed a few:

Anonymous said...

Totally agree :-)

Anonymous said...

Pat Brown, I enjoy all of your comments and opinions. I wish I could have enjoyed this article and the previous one. Why are my sites for your articles coming up blank? Enquiring minds want to know!

Pat Brown said...

Anon, the article is there in full. Reread the title!

Laura in Texas said...

My sites for your articles are coming up blank too. Something is wrong.

Pat Brown said...

Think about it again, Laura! Something is wrong but it isn't the blog post.

Laura in Texas said...

Oh I feel so stupid now! I'm so used to the internet being quirky! I was fixated on finding out what possible arguments there could be. Thanks Pat!

Anonymous 79 said...

My sentiments exactly!

Anonymous said...

Great post Pat Brown. Such insight! Thanks.

Amber Green said...

Being on a jury really sucks, though.

Anonymous said...

Well ...uh... "said", Ms. Brown.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

There is one argument that explains the verdict: the prosecution failed to prove their case.

Pat Brown said...

Grits, just because some people believe the US faked the moon landing, doesn't mean the government hasn't proved otherwise. In my opinion, the prosecution did a fine job in this case and the defense just threw a bunch of stupid stuff out there with no evidence for support. That the jury bought it, is why I believe the jury system is not capable of dealing with the complications of the cases today and needs to be overhauled.

mjaboston said...

Dear Pat Brown,
LOL I get it and you're the greatest!!!
Totally agree!

mjaboston

Anonymous said...

Unequivocally, without one single written word, that's what the verdict is worth.

As a criminal profiler, would be interested in your opioion based on experience how long before we hear CA is arrested again?

Anonymous said...

To all y'all who are questioning where the text is -- the title of the blog post is "Arguments IN FAVOR Of The Casey Anthony Verdict." There's no text there because there ARE NO ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF THIS VERDICT. Get it?

Anonymous said...

Pat,

As Profiler would you say that the place Caylee was dumped would fit into a profile from Casey's particulars, or however that could be predicted.

I kind of was wondering why a profiler did not figure out that,in fact, the body was close and be there waiting for the water to recede. Seems so logical.

Gail

Pat Brown said...

Usually, serial killers dump bodies within a mile of their homes. One, it is convenient and you don't have to be gone long. Also, you KNOW the area so you pick a place you are sure you won't be seen dumping the body or that anyone will stumble on to quickly. Likewise, with Casey. Chances are she would pick someplace she was familiar with so I would have started with those places first. Then, if that failed, one would have to see where her travels took her. With the smell of the body in the trunk, it COULD have been possible she drove and drove looking for a far off place to get rid of Caylee. So while the former is more likely the latter is possible.

Pat Brown said...

PS. I didn't mean Casey was a serial killer, just that she may use the same thinking that many serial killers use in dumping a body.

Anonymous said...

My guess then is that Casey knew that the area could be under water for the remainder of the summer since she walked the area all her childhood making it a good bet that she wouldn't be found if it rained a great deal.

Thanks for your responses.
Gail

Gritsforbreakfast said...

Pat, you may think the prosecution did a fine job, but the jurors who sat through every detail weren't nearly as convinced, and IMO their stance is FAR more rational than those who disbelieve the moon landing. The state never concretely linked her to the crime or articulated a motive; it wasn't even a difficult decision for the jury. The case simply wasn't proven. Pretending there are no arguments in favor of the verdict may make you feel better and provide fodder for the mob and other demagogues, but the state must prove the various elements of their case and they did not.

Finally, now that she's been acquitted, I'd suggest WCI writers refrain from calling Casey Anthony a killer, etc., if you want to avoid libel suits.

Anonymous said...

Pat,

Per my 10:50 July 12 [question] post, would you elaborate on given the history and/or psychopathy of CA, do you believe she will be re-arrested within 2 years or less?

Many years ago I had read about mothers that kill generally place their deceased children within close proximity, per your post. As many that follow this case, would the pattern murders exhibit textbook or unpredictable?

As you and 2/3 of the nation, [concede to arbitrary polls] feel CA did indeed murder Caylee. Having read and followed this case from inception, the need to fast track legislature is imperative. That said, what are the odds CA will be back in jail for related or similar issues? Outrage is an understatement, and for the record I do agree with Dennis Miller, "How did Florida find the 12 dumbest people in the State"?

TIA
TCB

Anonymous said...

Thank you, this was great because I have been trying to wrap my mind around the verdict and could not see any reason for her to get off. At least I am not the only one who thinks there is no reason for a not guilty verdict in 10 hours. The more I here jurist talk they more I believe they did not even know the law that they should follow. Most state because there was no cause of death, if this is the case we are in big trouble with jurist because many cases there are no cause of death. Most of the time the body is hidden until there is nothing left of the victim.

Pat Brown said...

Grits, your argument is exactly why I am opposed to the jury system. Yes, for whatever reason, the jury was not convinced that Casey was guilty. But, again, I do NOT believe it is because the prosecution failed. If I had been sitting on a professional jury, I believe I and the other professional jurors would have had little problem convicting Casey. Why? Because I would require the prosecution to do the impossible, to have every single piece of the puzzle when this is simply not possible. What I would need is enough of the puzzle to be able to determine what the puzzle means without reasonable doubt. There WERE enough pieces in this case to be very comfortable with what happened, to know what happened (murder) and who did it (Casey) to convict. I wouldn't have been bothered by all the stupid defense stuff because i would recognize it for what it was; smoke and mirrors and not evidence). I understand the behaviors of psychopathy and the behaviors of people who kill and I understand the evidence. The problem is, lay people may or may not understand all this (and it is not their fault if they don't; they are not professionals which is why EXPERTS are brought into the courtroom to testify) and, even though professionals disagree, the chances of proper conviction would be better with a jury who has education, training, and experience.
And, like OJ, Casey being found not guilty in a court of law (legally and thereby not punished through the legal system) does not mean I cannot believe the evidence proves she is a murderer and treat her accordingly. Just because she was "found guilty" doesn't mean I am going to rent her a room or let her watch a child of mine or I will hire her for any job. And if she has an issue with my assault of her character, she can take me to civil court and I will be more than happy to put her butt on the stand she refused to take in the trial.

Pat Brown said...

To Tia, no, I don't think Casey will commit a homicide or other major crime within a year (or, in fact, many years). She is a situational criminal, not a habitual one. She needed money, so she wrote fraudulent checks. Kid got in her way, bye-bye. BUT, if she has a lot of money, she might not steal. Even if she has another kid, if she has money for a Zanny the nanny, she may live perfectly fine. Women who kill their children repeatedly are serial killers who love the thrill of killing and the attention they get from the funeral. They will always kill again.

To Tia and anon on stupidity of the jury: well, if 12 people like the two of you and many of my Facebook and Twitter and blog friends were on the jury, she would have been convicted. This is what is so annoying. It IS a crap shoot instead of a properly handled decision. while the jury system may "work" a good portion of the time, this is because most prosecutors won't step into a court without a slam-dunk case BECAUSE they don't trust the jury knows what they are doing. If you had to get 12 untrained people to decide on a court case wouldn't you keep you win rate up better if you only gave them stuff that was so clear they couldn't get it wrong? And, on the occasions that they are wrong, most of the time the guy convicted is really innocent but no one gives a crap because he is a some pondscum everyone is happy to take the fall for the crime (and it is easy enough to believe he did it) and no one is paying attention (the jury doesn't feel if they get it wrong, it is going to be an issue). So, sure the jury works most of the time because it is rigged to not fail. When the kind of cases are alightly more complicated but the prosecution goes forward anyway, the jury half the time does fail and this is when the outrage occurs. Scott Peterson got a 'good' jury and Casey Anthony got a 'bad' jury. Heads, tails, easier to just throw a coin than to pick apart the state and claim they failed to prove the case. They did, but the jury was just unable to see it.

A Voice of Sanity said...

"Scott Peterson got a 'good' jury and Casey Anthony got a 'bad' jury."

Scott Peterson got a jury who constituted themselves a lynch mob. Reading 'their' book makes this quite clear. Anthony's jury was one which terrifies all the lazy prosecutors in the USA - a jury which could think and could apply the evidence to the jury charge in a logical fashion as required by the rules they were given.

You just embarrassed yourself on TV and you have done it again here in print. If you start with the presumption that Anthony is NOT guilty and THEN let the evidence lead where it goes you will come to a perfectly reasonable explanation for the events and for Anthony's behavior -- and more than sufficient evidence to clear her.

Take a blank piece of paper. Write on it everything the prosecution proved AND how they proved it. You will THEN have your blank piece of paper.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

Pat, I understand you would prefer to substitute your own judgment for that of the jury. And I notice you even want to be paid for it as a "professional juror" or possibly even get rid of juries entirely (going back to inquisition style trials like Mexico is moving away from, I suppose) But I'm not sure a biased "professional juror" is any preferable to an ignorant, short-term volunteer. For my part I prefer jurors who don't go into trial assuming they already know who's guilty, innocent, a liar, etc., but instead independently question all the evidence presented to them. Your displayed attitude makes the whole professional juror idea smell pretty rotten.

Pat Brown said...

Grits, you make an assumption I would be unable to question the evidence in a courtroom properly without evidence that this is true. There are cases, from the outside, I would not have thought the jury failed in its job. For example, Drew Peterson is going to be tried for the murder of his third wife. Do I think he likely did it? Yes. Do I think he likely off his fourth wife? Yes. Am I sure they can prove he killed Stacy Peterson. No. Right now, all they have is evidence she died in a bathtub and there has been argument over how. I assume this will be an issue in court. Now, if the prosecution can provide good proof that it was a homicide, they still have to prove Drew did it. As far as I know, there is nothing that links him to the crime except his fourth wife told someone he did it and she is not around to testify. If that is all the jury has, I would vote "not guilty" because, in reality, some other guy could have murdered Stacy and Drew was just dang happy it happened. I wouldn't be surprised, though, that a nonprofessional jury might convict him because they don't like him on so little evidence as occurred in the Michael Skakel case. I believe there should be enough evidence to convict and, even from the outside of the courtroom, the evidence against Casey Anthony was overwhelming. A majority of the people think the same and if twelve other jurors happened to get picked, Casey might well have been convicted. I don't like crap shoots in the justice building or flipping a coin and any prosecutor can tell you that they don't trust juries to understand the evidence and come back with a proper decision, which is why they only tend to take slam-dunk cases to court which keeps their win records near 100%.

Anonymous said...

LOL...ok..I get it now..great article!! its exactly how I feel about her non guilty verdict