The Casey Anthony verdict is an indictment of some in the electronic media who had the lethal-injection needles ready to insert into Anthony. It also is an indictment of the many Americans who do not understand or appreciate the great gift of due process of law.
There was a time when the journalism profession was honorable. But the rush to tell the story first and the desire to heighten ratings on electronic media have changed that. Talking heads have replaced thinking, ethical reporters of news on some networks.
Our system is based on a presumption of innocence and the government bearing the burden of proving what it charges. The standard of proof is based not on suspicion of guilt but on proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The talking heads would substitute a system of polling the public — but only after constantly informing us what a bad person Anthony is.
For those of us who have spent our lifetimes in the pit of public trial by jury, the verdict was very understandable and an affirmation, rather than an indictment, of the jury system. The jury said by its verdict that the government failed to present evidence that the accused committed each and every element of the crime that was charged — not half or two-thirds, but every element.
The Nancy Graces of the world fail to discuss that the medical examiner could not opine on the cause of death — that nothing was presented to convince a fact finder that Caylee was murdered.
Simply put, the evidence failed to show that Caylee was murdered (dead is not the same thing as murdered), how Caylee came to be dead (natural or unnatural cause), what Casey did to cause Caylee to be dead (Casey, not just someone), or that Caylee's death was caused by a deliberate act of Casey that was premeditated.
This is just the tip of the iceberg.
For the media to continue their harangue about the verdict in the face of the failure of proof is to call for a system often practiced in early Colonial times: Burn the woman we suspect of being a witch. But our Founding Fathers gave us the provisions of the Fifth Amendment, which reads in part:
"No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law."
The fact is that most of us did not attend or watch the entire trial. We saw snippets selected by someone else. We do not know what the evidence was, but we do know some of what was not shown.
The jury heard the evidence and considered the law as given by the trial judge. The verdict was not that Casey was innocent of anything. The verdict was "not guilty" — which translates to "the government failed to prove her guilty under the law and the evidence presented."
I don't know about the rest of the American people, but I want to enjoy the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and not have to worry about the opinion of the uninformed.