Competence And Intelligence – Casey Anthony Found Innocent Of Killing Caylee Anthony – Futuristic Or Common Sense Part XIV

By Lawrence W. Daly, MSc
Not Guilty! Twelve jurors decided that there was reasonable doubt in finding Casey Anthony not guilty in the murder of her daughter, Caylee Anthony. The justification is yet to be told. The jurors basically ran out of the courtroom, stating they did not wish to talk about their decision.
Ms. Anthony is still in custody for the charges of obstructing/lying to the investigators. Ms. Anthony can receive up to one year in jail for each crime. So with four criminal charges the total would be four years. Since she has been in custody since 2009, the judge may release her to the community. This will be decided tomorrow.

Did the jury do Ms. Caylee Anthony justice? The jurors expended 11 hours in coming to the eventual decision of not guilty. Was this enough time and what was their strategy of coming up with not guilty. A month trial and in 11 hours they were able to come up with ‘Not Guilty’. Did the jurors act competently and intelligently, let us examine some of the facts?
A friend of mine left me a text message this morning and it read, “How could a jury find that woman innocent of killing her daughter?” I guess you could best describe his feelings as the same as many, shocked and confused.
Did the law enforcement investigators do an upstanding job? The Sheriff of Orange County, Jerry L. Demings, gave a public announcement today, supporting the work of his police officers. He told the media, that his officer’s had done a great job in bringing Ms. Anthony to trial.
In previous articles I had written on Ms. Anthony’s demise and actions. I touched upon something that I believed was important, that the prosecution had failed to develop. This was the question we will deal with later on in this article and that is “What was Ms. Anthony’s motive to kill Caylee?” Moreover, Ms. Anthony had a very supportive set of parents who would have taken care of any all situations involving her and/or Caylee.
If you recall Ms. Anthony had taken a couple checks from her grandmother’s purse and used the checks for personal use. Her grandmother was very upset when she found out it was Ms. Anthony who had taken the checks out of her purse and utilized them. Mrs. Cindy Anthony came to Ms. Anthony’s defense and got things straightened out between her mother and Ms. Anthony.
It was these types of scenarios where it was demonstrated that whatever problem, Ms. Anthony had, her parents were there to help rescue her. So the possibility that Caylee died by drowning and Mr. George Anthony came over and assisted in cleaning up the accident would follow the previous rescue missions of Ms. Anthony’s situation.
There is little doubt that Mrs. Anthony wasn’t a part of the accident clean-up scheme, as if you listen to the 911 audiotapes with the dispatcher, there is no doubt that Mrs. Anthony was crying hysterically on the telephone. This hysteria was either the greatest acting job on this planet or Mrs. Anthony was truly in the dark.
It will be interesting for the jurors to justify their positions. It seems to be the opinion of the majority of the professionals who had monitored the criminal case from beginning to the end, that there was significant evidence obtained by the police to have her convicted.
Moreover, Ms. Anthony’s possible criminal behavior was disclosed in court i.e. the chloroform in the trunk, the body smell coming from the trunk, the hair in the trunk and at the crime scene and so forth. The professionals (most of them being attorneys) believed the prosecution had brought forth Forensic Experts and sound hypothesis.
Two Federal Bureau of Investigations Agents were called to the witness stand as well as other Forensic Experts. Some who had never testified about the subject matter before or which had never been heard in a court of law. Specifically, the Forensic Expert who diagnosed the smell that was emanating from the trunk of the car. Very futuristic.
Although the majority of the people didn’t believe in Ms. Anthony’s innocence, the Forensic Evidence was presented to the jury which will now set future testimony of this type of evidence. So although the prosecution was defeated, the possibility of future testimony by these unknown Forensic Experts may have been worth having the trial.
There is a learning curve which was associated with this case. Law enforcement dealt with evidence i.e. Caylee’s body which should have been located six months before. The contamination of Caylee’s body was significant enough to leave the Orange County Sheriff’s Office Detectives with little evidence to deal with.
The unfortunate investigative mistakes that are generally made in any serious major criminal case happened for a multitude of reasons. It is unfortunate that the majority of the police agencies do not have a roadmap on how to investigate a crime. Having a roadmap would prevent law enforcement officers from making simple investigative mistakes.
Having a Case Action Plan limits mistakes which are commonly made by law enforcement officers. A simple check list could be considered a roadmap. In this case there were too many mistakes made by law enforcement and the prosecution. The biggest glare is that the prosecution was unable to establish the “motive” for why Ms. Anthony killed Caylee, if indeed she was killed.
A motive may not be a legal requirement, but it is indeed the mystery the jury wants to hear about and what significance it has on the criminal investigation. Law enforcement needs to solve this mystery. A clue that Ms. Anthony did not report her child missing is one of the most compelling arguments. Did law enforcement act competently and intelligently?
This aspect of the trail of facts demonstrates that her motive not to report Caylee missing was a major attempt to cover up the death of Caylee. There were a culmination of other factors which the evidence concluded that Ms. Anthony killed or new her daughter was dead. What mother would not report her child missing?
It is clear from the testimony that the jurors heard the above type of testimony, but the ‘motive’ which was never presented during the trial, could have tied all of the pieces together. Stating that Ms. Anthony was a party animal and was a bad mom didn’t convince the jury that Ms. Anthony killed Caylee.
As one of the alternate jurors stated in an interview on television today, “The prosecution did not prove that Ms. Anthony killed Caylee.”  If law enforcement would have identified all of the possible motives associated with the death of Caylee then the prosecution should have been capable of bringing all the bells and whistles together, along with the motive, this may have turned the jury to find Ms. Anthony guilty.
Too often law enforcement only does what is in front of them. Is that what happened in this case? Were law enforcement official’s naïve and convinced they had the goods?
Looking over this series of is it futuristic or common sense; it is this author’s hope that we will discover some ideas, which will improve the protocols, procedures, and processes in the field of law enforcement child murder investigations. Some futuristic testimony was received and presented to the court in this trial. However, do you believe that Ms. Anthony just got lucky?
Just a week before, the defense was trying to get Ms. Anthony committed for not being able to assist with her case. You have to wonder if Ms. Anthony’s defense team knew something that slipped by all those professionals in the courtroom right along with the jurors. Maybe somewhere down the road, the secrets which the defense did not disclose to the court will be disclosed for all to hear.   Was the verdict futuristic or just common sense? 

This is


Post a Comment

All comments and feedback appreciated!

Criminology & Justice Headline Animator


Law Books




Serial Killers



Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...