Not Guilty - 10 Reasons Why Casey Anthony Won

The Casey Anthony not guilty verdicts were a shock to many people. For some, like talking heads Nancy Grace and Jeanine Pirro, they still refuse to believe it. One quick excuse is to say that the jury is a bunch of idiots. But that doesn't usually happen. Most jurors take their job very seriously, especially in a death penalty case. Also, as an alternate juror already spoke about, the things that viewers think are important, don't necessarily impress the jury.

The bottom line is this. The jury found her not guilty on the serious counts and they did it in less that 12 hours. This indicates that they were pretty united in their verdict from the outset. It seems unlikely that they would spend several weeks sequestered and then just blow off their responsibility at the end of the trial.

So, if the jury did the job we asked them to, what caused the not guilty verdicts? Sticking our head and the sand and saying that there was no way they could find Casey not guilty is just stupid. The not guilty verdict is what happened and we might be better served trying to understand why it happened. I offer 10 reasons why the jury might have found Casey Anthony not guilty.

1. The Prosecution Overcharged - The prosecutors made this a death penalty case, but they had some missing evidence like cause of death, time of death, motive, who did it. When you asked a jury to potentially end someone's life, you better have the evidence to back it up. Many agree that, for whatever reason, the evidence wasn't there.

2. The Jury Wasn't Biased - The jurors may have taken their oath to base their verdict on the evidence seriously. Most of the TV reporting was heavily biased in favor of the prosecution. If the viewers look at just the evidence, they might have see things differently.

3. Everybody Lied - One of the hallmarks of this case is that everybody lied. Casey lied (and was convicted on four counts). Her mother lied as evidenced in the rebuttal case about the web searches. Her father lied at some point at least - he smelled trash the car, but later on it changed to a dead body smell. One of those statements is a lie. The body finder had the skull roll out of a bag, but then later it was stuck in the mud. Did the defense and prosecutors lie? I know what I think. So how can the jury rely on any evidence if almost all of the key players are lying? Maybe they didn't believe anything they said.

4. Bogus Evidence - After two forensic pathologists could not determine the cause of death, the prosecutors find an anthropologist that says the death was caused by duct tape. This undermines their own witnesses, but the prosecutors staked their claim on this. Then on the chloroform search. The prosecutors said it was searched for 84 times, but their initial test said one time! And the 84 times might be a lie. For both instances, a jury member might wonder why, if the prosecutor's case is so strong, is he lying to me?

5. Unsubstantiated Motive - The motive presented by the prosecution was that Casey wanted to kill her daughter so she could go out and party. There is only one thing wrong with this. There was no evidence presented. All witnesses said that Casey was a great mother. Nobody, I mean nobody, said anything different. They relied on the partying after death to say that Casey was a bad mother, but it didn't match the rest of the evidence.

6. Spite Instead of Evidence - The prosecution and its witnesses used spite to make their case instead of evidence. Dr. G, the medical examiner, said she couldn't determine cause of death, but was sure it was a homicide because who would throw their daughter in the dump like trash? This is anger, not science. If Dr. G wants to hate on Casey Anthony, fine, but maybe the jury didn't give that much credence.

7. The Duct Tape Theory - In perhaps the most ridiculous exposition of the trial, Prosecutor Ashton described the duct tape as (paraphrase) "... one piece for the mouth, one piece for the nose, and one piece for the gap. You must have three." WTHF? He said it like he was quoting from the "Duct Tape Murder Manual." This was just all made up in his own head. I can see why no juror would believe this, or believe anything he said after making this assertion.

8. If Each Piece is Bad, the Whole Thing is Bad - A lot of evidence was presented and the defense did a good job of casting doubt on each piece. A talking head said that it was a mistake for the jury because they needed to look at the evidence as a whole and not piece by piece. But in the this case the evidences wasn't very strong. It's like the prosecution said 1+1 = 3, red is blue, fat is thin, and short is tall. And when the defense debunked each item, the prosecution wanted to say "But you have to look at the evidence as a group." That didn't seem to work.

9. You Figure it Out - In an amazing summation, Prosecutor Ashton laid out his case, but then said if the jurors came up with another theory, they were welcome to use that. They jurors may not have felt obliged to figure out the case for the prosecution and may have thought that it was the prosecution's job to present the case not for the jurors to fill in the blanks for the missing evidence.

10. DA Behavior - One final straw might have been the behavior of Mr. Ashton during the closing arguments. On numerous occasions he was shaking his head "no" and the crowning moment was his laughter when he was called out by Mr. Baez. This led to objections, removing the jury, admonishments by the judge, etc. This may have been a master stroke by Mr. Baez. I am sure the jury felt this trial, where they were potentially being asked to administer the death penalty, was anything but a laughing matter. The fact that Mr. Ashton thought it was funny was really disrespectful not only to the proceedings, but specifically to the jury.

These are just 10 items and I could go on. Is Casey Anthony guilty of something? That's what a lot of people believe. But is there a good reason for the jury to find her not guilty? I'd say there at least 10 reasons to think so.

My New Word - Palk!

I have been criticized for using common works to mean that something is not up to par, or that something has a particular shortcoming. Like if a company changed its logo and I thought it wasn't as good as their old logo or fell short of other, more current logos, I might have said, "That new logo is kind of gay." An urban dictionary defines a usage of "gay" as being something that is stupid or unfortunate, but that won't satisfy some people. It seems like if you use the word "gay" and you don't happen to be gay, then you are guilty of all manner of unpardonable sins and breaches of etiquette. For me, I was using the term in a way not to offend people, but that was not good enough. Sometimes people only hear what they want to hear. I understand this and I don't want to hurt anybody's feelings when I'm just making an offhand comment that isn't directed at any non-specified group or subgroup.

So, I thought I could go back to the word that I previously used a lot - lame. For Example, "That new logo is pretty lame." But without question, there are many people who are actually lame, and they might be offended. I haven't heard of this, but I don't want to get caught in a new crossfire.

Then there was another old standby - weak. "That new logo is weak." But let's face it. There are lot of people who are just physically weak. We might disregard them as being too lazy to go to the gym or use dynamic tension, but there is a subset of people, like ones suffering from myasthenia gravis, who are weak through no fault of their own and we shouldn't offend them, especially if we aren't trying to do so.

So I came up with my own word - palk. Here's the definition:

Palk - (pronouned pock, like walk or talk) - adjective used to describe the state of a thing or idea as being substandard or lacking in some way. It is used only as a specific literal descriptor and cannot be used as a general statement about any group or subgroup of people or unrelated objects. For example, "That new logo is kind of palk" could NEVER mean that someone hates Native American people or is implying that baby seals should be harmed. This would be an incorrect usage like when someone says something will "stump" your growth instead of "stunt" your growth. Additionally, palk is not a proper noun and has absolutely no connection to any proper nouns. For example, palk is not a derivative or connected in any way with the Palk Strait in India. While some people think that a vacation on the Palk Strait might be palk, the Palk Strait itself is totally unrelated to the word palk. If you say, "That new logo is kind of palk" and someone thinks that the Palk Strait is lacking in some way, it would be a thought of their own ignorance of the meaning of the word palk. In the same way, palk does not derive itself from the family name Palk or any of the descendants of Sir Robert Palk. If a person, in their use of the word palk, implies that any member of the Palk family is substandard or lacking in some way, that would be an improper use of the word unless specifically identified as such. Members of the Palk family may, in fact, be palk, but that would just be a coincidence unless there was a statement like, "As a self-proclaimed theological scholar, Beauregarde Palk is palk." Note that this statement is specific in nature (as an unspecified reference would be a misuse of the word palk) and could never be construed to mean that other members of Beauregarde's immediate or extended family are palk. They would have to be specifically identified as being palk for anyone to be able to make that assertion.

Finally, as the whole purpose of the word palk is to not offend anyone in a non-specific manner, it is socially unacceptable to be offended non-specifically. For example, if you hear, "That new logo is palk" and you were the designer of the logo, you might rightly be offended. But if anyone else is offended, that offense should be noted as being self-inflicted and saying that you are offended should be regarded as a monumental social gaffe at the same level as eating your salad with the wrong fork.

Varying degrees of palk are referred to as more palk, less palk, least palk, and most palk. Palker or palkest should not be used as these are not real words. Also, trying to use the work palk in coarse language, e.g. by saying "palk you," is not only an improper use of the word, but it universally identifies the user as both immature and feeble.

Now that I have a word that can't possibly non-specifically offend anyone, I need to get back to my job of the insightful, critical review of current events. If you think this post is palk, you are welcome to do so, but I will not be offended for several reasons. First, as the author, I know that this post is definitely not palk, so there. If, by saying the post is palk, you are trying to imply that bald people are stupid or that chicks don't really dig guys with skinny arms, I won't be offended by that either, because that would be a totally improper use of the word palk and I certainly know better that to be offended by someone who doesn't even know what the word palk means.

Republican Strategy – Sit Back and Do Nothing

The Republicans aren’t doing so well these days. No strategy seems to be working. Maybe they should take a break and do … nothing. The Democrats will self-destruct in time. It’s already happening. Nationally known Latina and Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta) fell and broke her ankle. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton fell and fractured her elbow. (Are Democrats becoming unbalanced??). The Dems are literally dropping like flies!!

Rookie Leader Back on the Campaign Trail

Something often happens with new leaders when things get difficult. Instead of stepping up to their new roles, they fall back to what they were good at in their old jobs. It’s happening with President Obama already. His promised bipartisanship is more partisan than ever, his transparency is opaque, he is stumbling with cabinet appointments, his banking recovery caused another market drop, and on and on. Seasoned leaders use these kinds of challenges as opportunities to lead. Rookie leaders try to recreate their old successes. For Obama this means heading back on the campaign trail. Meet with crowds of like-minded people where talk is favored over action. President Obama has never had a significant leadership job and he has a lot to learn. But he’s no longer Obama the Candidate; he’s Obama the President. It’s time to leave the campaigning behind and focus on his new job.

Uncool Hand Luke

In the movie, Cool Hand Luke, Luke, played by Paul Newman, wins a poker hand with weak cards by bluffing. When confronted he says, “Sometimes nothin’ can be a real cool hand” which earned him his moniker. Fast forward to Tim Geithner. He presented his financial recovery plan – long on rhetoric, but short (really absent) on details. The stock market responded by dropping about 4% on his remarks. In this case, bringing nothin’ to the table turned out to be very uncool. Secretary Geithner has been in the middle of this crisis since it started. If he doesn’t know how to help the country out of this financial situation, that’s bad news. And if he is just suffering from a “failure to communicate” that’s not so great either.

Is Obama the PC President?

During the presidential campaign, I thought that Obama represented something different. Was I the only one? It seemed like if the George Bush government was a PC, then Barack Obama was a Mac. But look what happened. It appears that for the Director of Communications, the literal face of the office to the media, Obama hired the PC guy from the Mac commercials! Did we all miss the boat? Who was the real Mac candidate? Maybe it was Dennis Kucinich and we have all been fooled!!


(Photo credits: Alex Brandon, AP for Robert Gibbs and Apple for the PC guy).

Michael Phelps Takes Another Hit

The reputation of Olympic champion Michael Phelps took another hit this week as a picture surfaced of him using a bong. One might wonder if the next Games will have him abandoning swimming for the “high” dive. While we don’t know what impact this will have on his endorsement deals, we do know that this is his second time in trouble – the first being a DUI at age 19. You would think that the moral of this story is to keep your nose clean if you want to clean up on endorsements. But no, the moral of the story is this:



Don’t grow the Bill Richardson beard. If you do, bad things will surely happen to you.