Why Casey Anthony Got Away With it…

44
3589
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

I know why child-killer Casey Anthony was found (cough) “not guilty.”

It’s the same reason why American drivers – most of them – will never dare turn right on red (even if the way is obviously clear) or pass a slowpoke over the double yellow, even if the double yellow used to be an official passing zone but was just recently painted over.

It’s The Law.

The American mindset has undergone a startling metamorphosis. I grew up in the ’70s, when WW II-era Bugs Bunny and Woody Woodpecker cartoons were still on the air, unedited. These cartoons reflected an American mentality that has been almost completely snuffed out. A don’t-trust-authority (and use your own best judgment) mentality combined with a BS detector of tremendous sensitivity. Bugs Bunny was a snarky individualist who busted balls – and took no ball-busting from anyone, even if they had a badge. In fact, Bugs tolerated it even less if they had a badge or wore a black dress or some other Official Costume. Ditto Woody Woodpecker – the pre-sanitized, politically (very) incorrect version, anyhow.

Now we have a generation reared on Tele-Tubbies. Soft, passive. Wait to be Told What To Do.

And whatever you do, don’t think.

These are the people who sat as jurors for the Casey Anthony trial – the same people who will never disobey a No Right on Red sign or any other law, rule or edict. Because they’ve been well-trained (and increasingly, thoroughly doped-up since they were tots). Never exercise initiative. Don’t question.

Submit. Obey.

In the trial, the hideous totality of evidence presented that Anthony killed her kid, then covered it up, counted for naught because the Jots and Tittles of The Law had not been satisfied – according to the tortured interpretation and admonitions of shyster lawyers. Instead of ignoring the shysters’ pedantic sophistry and using their own best judgment as to what really mattered – did this woman kill her kid? – they chose to follow The Law. If, for example, they were told by the man in the black dress to ignore damning evidence because said damning evidence was not presented in quite the proper way, they would actually throw a switch inside their heads and exclude said damning evidence from their (cough) deliberations. Reason – hell, common sense – never enters into it. Just whatever arbitrary construct The Law presents them as the template for their actions (and non-actions).

It’s the same mindset that causes decent people to forgo the means of self-defense if The Law says that only criminals may possess them. It never occurs to them that obeying The Law is less important than staying alive – The Law be damned.

The same mindset that instills the depressing automatic compliance which increasingly characterizes the Modern American – whether it makes any sense to comply or not.

The other day I was heading down the mountain (as we say around here) when I rolled up behind a CloverCluster. The leader was not a Clover – just a VDOT tractor with a long arm that was cutting overgrowth along the shoulder. Behind it were the Clovers – two of them. Neither would even try to pass the tractor, even though the sight lines ahead were good for more than a quarter mile. The official-looking VDOT tractor with its blinking orange lights was a dazzling incarnation of The Law to these Clovers. So even though the tractor operator was not a cop and had no power to cite anyone for anything – much less pursue anyone to present a citation – the Clovers cringed in deference, patiently awaiting to be told when it was OK to pass.

Not I. This Bugs Bunny-reared Gen Xer evaluated the situation, saw it was perfectly safe to pass – and did so. Double yellow (and orange blinking lights) be damned. Much to the absolute horror of the two Clovers, one of whom did the pathetic flashing of his car’s headlights and tooting of his horn at me as I sailed past. I have no doubt he spent the rest of the day angrily denouncing me as a reckless Law Breaker to anyone within his Roche limit.

I will not cotton to the first – but eagerly embrace the second. When a law makes sense, I abide by it. Interestingly, laws that make sense – especially laws that make moral sense – are laws we really don’t need anyhow. Because we should not need to be told by a law to do what is obviously right – and to not do that which is obviously wrong. Laws are mostly if not entirely for the Clovers. People who are no longer capable of exercising judgment (perhaps they never were) and who lack the capacity to reason a thing out and ask themselves: Is this harmful or not?

Non-Clovers don’t need laws to tell them not to steal, beat people up or commit fraud because they are intellectually and morally awake. Clovers are asleep, just as the Tele-Tubbies intended.

End result? Casey Anthony is free and soon to be a millionaire.

And you and I are stuck behind that Clover up ahead, who just won’t move over… .

Because it’s The Law!

Share Button

44 COMMENTS

  1. Casey Anthony Video Diary
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sfdzjTLQZk

    Wikipedia Article – Death of Caylee Anthony
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Caylee_Anthony

    1 Caylee Marie Anthony was a two-year-old American girl who lived in Orlando, Florida with her mother, Casey Marie Anthony, and her maternal grandparents, George and Cindy Anthony.

    2 On July 15, 2008, Caylee was reported missing to 911 by Cindy Anthony, who said she had not seen Caylee for 31 days.

    3 On December 11, 2008, officials claimed to find skeletal remains which they said were Cayley Anthony with a blanket inside a trash bag in a wooded area near the family home. The medical examiner ruled it a death by undetermined means.

    4 Three years later, the typical Stalin show trial after a long delay was had from May 2011 to July 2011. The prosecution sought the death penalty. The defense team, countered that the child had drowned accidentally in the family’s swimming pool on June 16, 2008, and that George Anthony disposed of the body. On July 5, 2011, the jury found Casey guilty of four misdemeanor counts of providing false information to a law enforcement officers, was credited with time served, and released.

    5 In July 2011, Texas EquuSearch (TES), a non-profit group which assisted in the search for Caylee from July to December 2008 filed suit against Anthony for fraud and unjust enrichment. TES estimates that it spent more than $100,000 searching for Caylee even though she was already dead. TES estimates that the abortive search for Caylee expended 40% of the group’s yearly resources which could have been spent looking for other missing children.

    She’s Going Places – Caylee Tribute Song
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONCV82YJaL8

    – It seems to me the state has no valid interest in this child in the first place. Half of Caylee’s existence was provided by Casey; strictly speaking, the tax cattle legalistic personhood and supposed civil rights are irrelevant to the rest of unrelated Americans. This family matter should have been handled or litigated according to the wishes of the other family members, and those with a connection to Caylee, not according to some boilerplate edicts of our brutal anti-individualistic Overlords.

  2. Casey Anthony is objecting to a proposal that she sell her life story as part of her bankruptcy. Her attorneys filed a motion this week in federal bankruptcy court in Tampa asking a judge to reject the proposal.;

  3. Eric,

    I enjoyed your article about the Clovers in the Casey Anthony trial. The first time I saw that term, “Clover” I had no idea what it meant, but by reading just a few of your articles that mention them, I’ve figured it out by the context. I’m a fifty year Canadian male, born and raised in snow country and grew up admiring my Dad’s big iron V-8’s. I’ve had a few myself, including a lovely factory ordered ’88 Crown Vic and my latest, a 2010 Charger R/T. I’m a law and order type of guy, but as you say, if it makes sense. I’ve spent most of my life as a trucker, so I’ve seen millions of miles on the roads and see plenty of “Clover f***s.” You know the type, there’s an accident on the other side of a divided highway, so let’s slow down all four lanes eastbound to stare at something on the westbound side.

    I really despise the Clovers who will mindlessly refuse to pass a slow moving vehicle, just because it would require some initiative of thought and action. I’ve seen myself caught behind a lineup of Clovers on a two lane road and had to pass several at once in an 18-wheeler in order to get by. Not passing because I was in a hurry, being hourly paid, but because my head would explode from the frustration of being caught in a herd of Clovers who follow each other nose to tail and don’t have the common sense to get out of the way or leave enough space for others to pass. Well, sir, when you’re caught in such a situation while driving a truck, you really don’t have much you can do about it, but even in the most gutless of autos that are called “cars” today, it is still possible to get out of most situations, provided one has some initiative and a little bit of pluck, like good ole’ Bugs Bunny. It’s very simple, as you are well aware: check for clearance and hammer it. I used to love it when my father would pull onto a highway; he’d gun that big V-8 and she’d roar. I still enjoy that sensation when I hammer down on my HEMI, but only when necessary.

    Sadly, Clovers are everywhere these days. The O.J. jury was one such gathering, as was the Anthony trial. The current President you are suffering under was elected by a nation of Clovers, hoping for “change” which would mean they’d never again have to think or fend for themselves. All I can do is look south from my side of the border and say, “My God, what have they done?”

    Best of luck, and keep the articles coming.

    Randy

  4. Eric,

    I enjoyed your article about the Clovers in the Casey Anthony trial. The first time I saw that term, “Clover” I had no idea what it meant, but by reading just a few of your articles that mention them, I’ve figured it out by the context. I’m a fifty year Canadian male, born and raised in snow country and grew up admiring my Dad’s big iron V-8’s. I’ve had a few myself, including a lovely factory ordered ’88 Crown Vic and my latest, a 2010 Charger R/T. I’m a law and order type of guy, but as you say, if it makes sense. I’ve spent most of my life as a trucker, so I’ve seen millions of miles on the roads and see plenty of “Clover f***s.” You know the type, there’s an accident on the other side of a divided highway, so let’s slow down all four lanes eastbound to stare at something on the westbound side.

    I really despise the Clovers who will mindlessly refuse to pass a slow moving vehicle, just because it would require some initiative of thought and action. I’ve seen myself caught behind a lineup of Clovers on a two lane road and had to pass several at once in an 18-wheeler in order to get by. Not passing because I was in a hurry, being hourly paid, but because my head would explode from the frustration of being caught in a herd of Clovers who follow each other nose to tail and don’t have the common sense to get out of the way or leave enough space for others to pass. Well, sir, when you’re caught in such a situation while driving a truck, you really don’t have much you can do about it, but even in the most gutless of autos that are called “cars” today, it is still possible to get out of most situations, provided one has some initiative and a little bit of pluck, like good ole’ Bugs Bunny. It’s very simple, as you are well aware: check for clearance and hammer it. I used to love it when my father would pull onto a highway; he’d gun that big V-8 and she’d roar. I still enjoy that sensation when I hammer down on my HEMI, but only when necessary.

    Sadly, Clovers are everywhere these days. The O.J. jury was one such gathering, as was the Anthony trial. The current President you are suffering under was elected by a nation of Clovers, hoping for “change” which would mean they’d never again have to think or fend for themselves. All I can do is look south from my side of the border and say, “My God, what have they done?”

    Best of luck, and keep the articles coming.

    Randy

  5. I don’t think I would jump to the conclusion that one is gullible because they disbelieve what a government agent is telling them. For example, it was stated in the trial (as I understand it), that Casey Anthony searched for “Chloroform” 84 times. That turns out to not be exactly true:
    http://www.christianpost.com/news/casey-anthony-update-prosecutors-deny-withholding-info-on-chloroform-searches-52584/

    So, what other evidence did the prosecution falsely present?
    I’m not saying she didn’t do the crime; just throwing in with “someone” that the government needed to do a better job of proving their case, especially if they’re going to try to execute someone.

  6. “Casey’s Last Lie”

    In the final analysis, the jury in the Casey Anthony trial had to decide
    who they believed was lying (or telling the truth), George or Casey Anthony.
    Because the evidence proved by any doubt, that one of them tossed Caylee
    away like trash into the swamp. All of the items found at the scene were from
    the Anthony home so we can deduce that either one of the two were responsible.

    So who was lying about what happened to Caylee? Let’s look at George.
    George probably told Cindy a few whoppers in his time but lying was never a
    “way of life” for George as the evidence showed it was for Casey. On the
    stand George stated that he never saw Caylee after Casey left with the child
    on the 15th of June. George also said that he never molested Casey and that
    Caylee never drowned in the pool. The defense boasted in their opening that
    both were true but never presented an iota of evidence to support either claim.
    The River Cruz thing was always a side issue and never had anything to do
    with who killed Caylee.

    Should the jury believe Casey, that the child drowned in the pool? I
    guess if the Anthony’s didn’t own a pool she could have said that Caylee was
    struck by lightning! Same thing. However, the trial didn’t show one drop of
    proof that there ever was any pool incident. No proof. Just an allegation from
    Casey and her defense. The testimony from witnesses unequivocally showed
    to all that Casey was an habitual lifelong liar. Her lie from the start, to throw
    off the investigation was that Zanny had the baby. When that lie collapsed
    Casey came up with a new one to remove responsibility from herself. That
    is that Caylee drowned in the pool. If you don’t believe that story, then the
    responsibility of what happened to Caylee falls to Casey.

    So the jury, by using reason and logic along with the mountain of
    evidence that a dead body had been in the trunk, the high level of chloroform,
    the chloroform searches, the lies, Casey’s actions, George’s actions, the
    911 call, the jail house conversation and expert testimony, had to decide who
    was lying, George or Casey, about the drowning. On one jail house call Cindy
    tells Casey about the latest media rumor that Caylee drowned in the pool.
    Casey’s response is “Surprise, surprise.” Shouldn’t that have told the jury
    something? Casey was basically saying that that was hogwash.

    If you vote not guilty you are saying that you believe Casey and that
    the drowning removes all responsibility from her. And vice versa. This group
    of twelve gullible goony birds actually chose to believe the “Queen of all Liars”,
    Casey Anthony. They bought her fifty-first lie, that Caylee drowned in the
    pool, and that grandpa George saw the woods as a fitting burial place for his
    beloved Caylee. To believe this the jury must have been eating some
    mushrooms for lunch or smoking something during breaks. It makes no sense,
    no evidence supports it, is from Alice in Wonderland and DID NOT happen!

    If we discount the drowning fairytale, we are left with two possibilities,
    either that Casey intentionally ended Caylee’s life by suffocation, or that
    Caylee died by accidental overdosing of chloroform with tape over her mouth
    to keep her quiet while Casey partied. Either one is still murder one. The
    only way to exonerate Casey from this is to hook on to the drowning excuse.
    Incredulously this lame and lazy jury chose to believe Casey’s last lie!

    by Larry Blong

    P.S. I bought some land outside of El Paso, Texas when I was a student
    at the University of Houston in 1971. There was a class action suit
    brought several years later as the land turned out to be pretty much
    desert and sand. I’d love to unload this sandbox. Do you think any
    of the Casey Anthony jurors might be interested?

  7. I normally agree with you (not always, but normally) but don’t go along this time. I heartily endorse independent thinking, and despise the “thems the rules” mindset. However, not when you’re serving on a jury. I do not endorse the government acting violently towards citizens in an arbitrary way, or a way not dictated by law. I want the jury to serve as a check on the government, not to rubber-stamp government accusations. I want the jury to force the government to follow the law. If the prosecution cannot prove its case, then the government doesn’t get to cage anyone.

    By the way, I didn’t follow the case, but I can say it’s easier to write on a blog that a person is guilty, and harder to actually act to send them to death. Also, my assumption is that most people on the jury share the typical American view, so encapsulated by Nancy Grace – accused=guilty, and especially pretty middle-class women must be punished. So, if they voted not guilty, they must have been really unimpressed.

    In short, freedom for us, not for the government.

    • I think we do agree, actually!

      What bothered me about this case (like the OJ case) was not that the jury acted as a check on run-amok prosecution but that the system seems designed to confuse jurors, or prevent them from considering relevant facts (for example, on the basis of some procedural error) and rather than pursue justice, the system’s main purpose seems to be Talmudic parsing of “the law” to the exclusion of justice.

      I did follow this case, so the totality of evidence (including the defendant’s actions) more than proved to me beyond a reasonable doubt that she was involved in the death of her kid, whether by deliberate violence or deliberate neglect and is without doubt guilty of trying to cover up the event. Manslaughter/reckless endangerment and child abuse at the minimum are what this piece of trash deserved.

      • Without all the incantations and rituals people wouldn’t need lawyers. I think much of the problems of modern american society are founded upon lawyers making law to improve their bottom lines.

        Why is ever more modern “speeding” causing a person to face ever harsher penalties? Business for lawyers. Fundamentally that is how it gets passed into law (but other forces are playing the lawyers too). Go to court without a lawyer and you are dead meat. Pay $300 or more for the right traffic ticket lawyer and your problems can often just go away. The judge, the prosecutor, and your lawyer all go to the same parties, they see each other regularly. They are co-workers essentially and often friends. If you’re so-and-so’s client you must be an ok person so the judge and prosecutor will make things easier on you. Your lawyer isn’t as much good at law but more so you now know somebody who knows somebody. Now you’re not just some horrible person looking to run down children….

        “good people” and “bad people”, “insiders” and “outsiders”. It’s a all stupid social game. Hence why libertarians are often considered anti-social. We reject these stupid social games for fairness, equality, and logic.

        As I understand it the prosecution spent a lot of time on how she was such a horrible person and mother. Irrelevancy to proving the case at hand, but that’s how the system and the society works. The jury apparently did not go for it but wanted evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It appears more likely she did or not, but the prosecution used the standard formula and this time it didn’t work. The jury may have just rejected the “bad person” formula.

        OJ probably didn’t do it, but does know who did it, acted to cover up that person’s guilt, and essentially took the heat for the guilty person…willingly. Search for “OJ, Guilty but not of murder”. It’s pretty convincing if viewed with an open mind.

        • The prosecution did need to establish context (in my opinion). A “good person” – someone whose life reveals a responsible, decent individual – vs. a “bad person.” The scenario being: Here we have John Q., who has no criminal record, has to date never been anything but a responsible person liked by the people he interacts with. Now a charge – based on scant and purely circumstantial evidence – has been leveled against him. There are other plausible explanations for what happened. Etc.

          In context – and absent solid proof- it is hard to believe this individual is guilty.

          Second case:

          We have a clearly “bad person.” An irresponsible narcissist – a sociopath, really (who else “forgets” to tell authorities her toddler has vanished… for a month?) who clearly did not want to be burdened with a child. This context is very relevant to the charges against her. To ignore or dismiss this context strikes me as odd. (We do this often in our system, for example, excluding a charged pedophile’s prior record of molestation. Bizarre.)

          Now, add to this context some very incriminating facts:

          Physical evidence (note: not someone’s opinion or assertion) of a corpse in the trunk of her car. What other reasonable explanation is there for that?

          “cover-up” lies made by the defendant about nonexistent malevolent nannies.

          Stickers on the body identical to the stickers possessed by the mother/in her home.

          Internet searches for Chloroform.

          I’d agree with you – and the jury – if we had a “nice” woman, an apparently good mother, who was frantic when her child disappeared and who called authorities immediately, who was then bizarrely charged by the cops with killing her.

          But that’s not the case here.

          • The point I was attempting to make is that government prosecutors time and time again paint their targets as bad people regardless if they really are or not. It’s their stock method. They have been known to lie and encourage/reward perjury to achieve it. They get away with it time and time again and it works more often than it doesn’t. A lot of innocent good people have gone to prison this way. The ones that don’t are bankrupted putting on a defense and their lives ruined.

            Essentially it’s a boy who cried wolf type situation. Well this time the defendant might actually be that horrible lying person… but every defendant is cast that way for an easier victory. Is the state telling the truth this time?

            Exaggeration is another thing… someone goes 85mph on the interstate and he’s a dangerous potential child-killer… well then, what about an actual child killer? When the state conflates small errors of judgement and non-crimes with actual crimes, horrible ones, what happens?

            The state’s “facts” are often suspect as well because of everything from dishonesty to incompetence. If the state were similarly examined as defendant’s histories it would not hold up very well.

            For every Casey Anthony there are probably several innocent people executed or serving long/life sentences. This is because the objective is not justice, it’s victory at any cost and furthering careers. Perhaps more attention to justice and less towards career advancement and politics could help? Even if in this case the prosecution was completely noble and justice seeking it carries the taint of what happens repeatedly by others that work in similar capacities.

      • Well, the law developed in two ways. Of course, there’s the impulse you and others have noted – government wanted laws to be ever more arcane and complex. But, at the same time, we develop more complicated laws and rules of evidence because, well, this is a hard task. We could, for instance, simplify traffic laws by saying “drive safely.” However, we’d be inviting all sorts of abuse if we did that. For the same reason, we can’t just accept “it’s obvious” as the standard of proof in a criminal proceeding.

        I’d add, as a side point, that no matter what she did, she has far less blood on her hands than the government officials. So, even if someone richly deserves punishment, I still consider it rather hypocritical for that punishment to be delivered by government agents.

        • Laws can be rather simple. There’s no reason to have laws on using a cell phone while driving or drunk driving or any other kind of driving. There are already tons of laws that already apply for bad driving. These new laws are added under the “bad people” principle (drunk and texting drivers are “bad people”, but sleepy drivers aren’t, that’s an accident.) and essentially expand government and profits for certain people.

          • Amen.

            The cause of impairment (whether by alcohol, inattention or senility) is largely irrelevant. Focusing (as Clover does) on “drunk drivers” – or “cell phone users” – is a sort of weird moralistic fetish. The only thing that ought to matter is whether a driver, by his driving, is giving evidence he’s impaired. The reasons why should not matter.


        • Ah, but there is a difference here – a big one!

          “We could, for instance, simplify traffic laws by saying “drive safely.” However, we’d be inviting all sorts of abuse if we did that.”

          vs.

          “For the same reason, we can’t just accept “it’s obvious” as the standard of proof in a criminal proceeding.”

          In the first case, you’re saying competent and incompetent drivers alike should be restrained a priori – before either have actually done something, on the basis that they might. This is Cloverism! Why not only pursue/prosecute drivers who actually cause some harm to others?

          In the second, Anthony – a specific individual – provided abundant proof of her culpability, from her failure to report her own child missing for a month to her lies about nonexistent malevolent nannies to the physical evidence of a corpse in her car to the presence of duct tape and stickers of a type she owned ont he corpse. C’mon.

          To disbelieve in her guilt requires accepting an OJ-like spiel about vague “real killers” while ignoring all the foregoing.

  8. Just read your article on the LRC blog, and I must say “WELL DONE!” I know what the jurors were required to do, but if it were me, Casey’s silence told a different story. They can hide behind the law, but that woman knows what happened to her daughter. I would have voted ‘guilty’ and she can appeal.

    Also, the driving you describe leads me to ask…”Do you live in Topeka KS?” Kidding, I swear you described 95% of the drivers in this town.

    Again, great article!

  9. Normally I agree with you Eric but as others have stated, the job of the jury is not to be a perfunctory stamp of approval for whatever the prosecution says. I’m not even sure I can say that the prosecution did a poor job, it’s just impossible to know what really happened. They were unable to show with any certitude exactly how, where, and when that baby died, nor a strong motive so the murder charge simply could not stand. Maybe Casey really did murder that kid, but the criminal justice system isn’t supposed to lock people up based on guesswork.

    There are scores of overzealous prosecutions of people (who often turn out to be innocent) on dubious charges, so I’m going to remain just as skeptical of this particular prosecution.

  10. In addition to the ones you mention, two of my pet peeves and aggravations are crosswalk lights and traffic lights. When I come a street intersection and the “orange hand” is displayed or the traffic light is red, I stop, look, and listen. If the road is clear, I cross. I make sure that I can do so without hurrying or making any cars slow down. One day, I came to such a crosswalk and there were two bicycle cops there (one skinny and one fat), waiting for the light to turn. I decided to see what would happen if I tried to cross. After making sure that the road was clear, I started across. After a few steps, the fat one reined me in, telling me that it was illegal to cross. I would be jaywalking. I came back, but I told him that I thought my corrective lenses were sufficient for me to be able to tell when it was safe to cross. I don’t think he thought it was funny. Ditto regarding traffic lights. When we come to an intersection and the way is obviously clear, why must we sit like mindless robots and wait for the light to turn green? Oh, the frustrations of the sane caught in an insane asylum.

    • In the past couple years I’ve started practicing what I call the “no cop, no stop” approach to these things. I’ve lost HOURS of my life waiting in excruciatingly long lights tripped by people using crosswalks or a single vehicle that rolls over the sensor while taking a free right and is long gone by the time the light actually turns.

      So if there’s no one coming, and there’s no fuzz to be seen, I just go. Ditto when I’m sitting in traffic looking at a near-empty HOV lane. I’m sorry but I will not lose one more minute of my life waiting in traffic, afraid to avail myself of the off-limits lane, that failed social engineering scheme that only benefits soccer moms and people who take the bus. And it’s funny how many people are sitting there waiting for someone else to do it first. I almost always have one or two peel off and follow me.

      Never been caught yet, and if I do I won’t scream at the cop, I’ll just pay the fine that I view as a toll. It’s honestly worth it if time is money. I’ve saved a lot more than the $500 fine. I’ll probably get in trouble as ever-more revenue spy cameras come online, but that’s a rant for another day,

      • That’s my MO, too!

        No cop, no stop.

        And, if you think about it, it proves the point; i.e., no harm is done – so the cop (were he around) had no reason to bother you inthe first place.

        • I get selectively enforced upon for the smallest things and get stopped to have my papers checked when I do something that is legal but not like the herd. And my legal bicycling gets their attention too. 3am at a stop sign with nobody around… with my luck there is a cop parked lights out in a private driveway just out of view using night vision….

        • Hooray! I fancy myself smarter than the CPU in the stoplight controller…no traffic, no cop, no stop.

          On another note: in total violation of the express will of Houstonians, the sons-of-bitches in our city gov are turning the redlight cameras back on after we had them stopped in a referendum last year.

  11. It would appear that the justice system worked as intended, but I don’t believe it was intended to be manipulated by selective testimony, selective evidence and selective jury instruction.

    The test beyond a reasonable doubt should not be interpreted as beyond ANY doubt. Yes, I am one of those voyeurs that watched the trial so I am speaking from what I personally witnessed and not media speculation. I saw all the sidebars, all the objections, the many times the jury was made to leave the room. There were many things discussed during some of these sessions that the jury SHOULD have been allowed to see or hear.

    Some of the jurors are speaking to the media and saying they don’t believe she is innocent. They just didn’t have enough evidence. They also were instructed in such a way that I doubt they could have proven Caylee was even Casey’s child. There use to be a rule or law or something that said “no body, no crime.” That has changed. The way this played out, Casey could have confessed to the murder and they STILL wouldn’t have been able to convict her.

    When the jurors themselves come out and say they don’t believe she is innocent, there’s a problem. When they disagree with their own verdict – there’s a problem. How can we celebrate a justice system that requires an acquittal on the grounds of reasonable doubt, yet creates reasonable doubt by the verdict of an acquittal? Even the jurors are upset with the verdict they seemed forced to make.

    When our great justice system becomes easier to manipulate than to follow, it is no longer justice and people like Casey Anthony go free.

  12. I took the opposite from this verdict. The prosecutors (like other thugs on the government payroll) expected the mundanes in the jury to defer to their accusations and not use any judgement. (“If the DA accuses her, she must be guilty”) And, like most government employees, they took the easy way and relied on crappy circumstantial evidence and character attacks to get their conviction. (And, of course, engaged in media leaks that would be a felony if the defense or jury did the same)
    The jury did not defer to the badge bullies and accept the accusation as proof of guilt, and demanded the government prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s not enough to find the most likely culprit if you want to sentence a person to death.
    The verdict is a rebuke to our government conviction machine that is cynically called a “criminal justice system.”

    • I agree with “someone”. The government expects juries to simply roll over and accept whatever the prosecutors say – and when they exhibit independent thinking, they react as if the sky is falling. I salute the jurors for their decision, made despite death threats from idiot Americans who believe whatever Nancy Grace feeds them.

      • Ditto what “someone” said. Juries are legally entitled, if not obligated, to follow their own consciences in rendering a verdict. The standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” in criminal matters is there for a damn good reason, and the Casey Anthony prosecutors did not present a case that met that standard. Simple as that. The problem now is the brainwashed public’s treatment of the individual jurors in the case. After this, would YOU want to serve on a jury in a high-profile case?

        • How can you say that the jury followed its own conscience in rendering the verdict when the jury is turns around and says how they don’t like their own verdict? If made a decision using their consciences then they wouldn’t feel so bad about their own verdict.

          • Hi Dottie,

            That’s a very good point!

            They went by the “letter of the law” – even though I suspect most of the jurors believed she was as guilty as OJ.

          • I thought the jury’s verdict was that the prosecution did not prove their case a la Clark and Darden.

            We have to look at the prosecutors in this case and wonder should they be sacked like Nifong was over the Duke University Lacrosse non-case. In this case for doing such a lousy job of a case and in Nifong’s for wanting to do a lousy job by railroading a case that had no merit.

            Juries do not want to be railroaded.

      • If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit… !

        But seriously: I agree with what you’re saying, in principle. I support the “reasonable doubt” standard and agree no jury should serve as an amen chorus for the prosecution. But in this case, which I followed, there was a pile of directly incriminating evidence (such as clear evidence of the presence of a decomposing body in the accused’s car’s trunk), the Internet searches for chloroform (who does that?), her very strange actions following the disappearance of the kid – to name a few – that render belief in her innocence very hard to accept. Granted, they don’t have a video of her doing the deed, and because the body was so decomposed when it was found, it was impossible to determine cause of death (though duct tape around the mouth says a lot about the manner of death).

        All they had in the OJ case was was circumstantial, too.

        If it were just one or two pieces of circumstantial evidence – especially if it did not tie directly to the accused (like evidence of a corpse in her car) but was merely suggested or implied and could have another reasonable explanation – and the rest of the pattern (such as the nature of the person, the person’s conduct/behavior) did not fit, then I’d have reasonable doubt. But when there is a mountain of circumstantial evidence and when the pattern fits, I would never vote to acquit.

          • I understand where you’re coming from – and, again, I agree with you in principle.

            But at some point, circumstantial evidence adds up to guilt. I probably would not have voted to convict of first-degree murder as that would be conjecture. But it’s pretty clear to me that she is responsible for the death of her kid, and attempted to cover it up. There is certainly sufficient evidence to support that (e.g., corpse in the trunk; fake nanny story; Internet searches for how to make/use chloroform; failure to report her own child missing for weeks… ) so I would have voted for manslaughter/reckless endangerment/child abuse – something along those lines.

            Exonerating her of any responsibility makes no sense to me.

          • If Casey had actually confessed to the crime, do you think she still would have been acquitted? Her word is just that: words, not evidence.

            • Agreed. I don’t base my belief in her guilt on what she said. I base it on what the evidence clearly implies she did. For example, the evidence of their having been a dead body in the trunk of her car. Is there another, more reasonable explanation for this? Do innocent people often have dead bodies placed in the trunks of their cars? And what of the evidence that’s much more than just circumstantial, such as the fact that she did not report the disappearance of her own daughter? Who does such a thing, except someone who has done something they want to hide? And the fake Nanny story? And the Internet searches for Chloroform?

        • Even if she is guilty, now she’s available to the public. Not hanging out in prison, helping Goldman Sachs’ stock portfolio.

        • In this case the jury, for whatever their reasons, defied the prosecutors, and the media. There is something profoundly American about that. Too often juries just do what the prosecutor tells them because they’re ‘law abiding citizens’ and ‘not on the side of criminals.’

          But something did not smell right about the prosecution’s case. And in the great tradition of the American jury system they were rebuffed.

          BTW it came out later that the infamous ’84 times’ she ‘searched for chloroform’ was just a fabrication. After reviewing the files the software company that produced the original report(as reported in the NYT and elsewhere) decided that the software was mis counting. There was ONE search for chloroform which lead to a science article about uses of chloroform in the 1800s. The software developers contacted the prosecutor’s office by both phone and email repeatedly to correct the error. Incredibly, and ILLEGALLY, the prosecution informed neither the jury nor the defense about this. Had she been convicted, that ‘detail’ might have been enough to throw the case out.

          We don’t really know if she killed the child, but the prosecution completely failed to prove murder (erratic behavior does not prove murder). And it’s the jury’s job to call BS when the prosecution fails to make a case.

  13. There’s another type of cloverite thinking, and that is that laws are for other people to obey. The various tool laws and nit-picking regulation of our lives is often pushed by people who don’t obey them. But they support those laws to go over the bad people. Bad people like this woman who was acquitted. They know who is bad and who isn’t just by what government-press-release TV news tells them. The law and it’s rules is never supposed to work in favor of bad people. So now we are hearing calls to dispose of the currently well-crippled jury system, to make sure bad people never go free… “experts” will determine who is guilty and of what. Experts that will somehow always side with the government that pays them.

    As to passing the VDOT tractor, glad you now agree that it’s not the slow vehicle at the edge of the lane that’s the problem but the incompetent drivers that block the road because they can’t figure out how or are unwilling to move over a few a feet and pass safely. 🙂

  14. I love your site and visit several times a week. One question, where does Clover mean and what is its reference.

    • The term clover came from a dude that visits this site often and leaves comments. He thinks it’s cool to drag ass in the fast lane and tie up traffic. He also has some very interesting views on laws and politics in general. He is all about the Troof and Facks!

    • Hi Owen,

      Thanks – and, welcome!

      Clover is what Dom said: An archetype of the “safety” and “security” badge-licker; a person who can’t compute a society based on voluntarism and live – and let live. He’s one of those do-gooders who always wants some new law to force people to live and act as he thinks they ought to.

      At gunpoint.

      He’s also a left-lane hog and supporter of speed limits (whatever the limit happens to be must be the right speed because after all, it’s the speed limit!) and so on. Here’s his sign:

      Clover

  15. Another masterpiece! I passed a six car clover cluster last night on the way home. I can’t handle doing less than the speed limit on back roads! Hope all the clovers out there get used to this view!
    Ep Autos
    I am sick of you bastards going so fucking slow everywhere.

LEAVE A REPLY