i have been loosely following the casey anthony trial for weeks (mostly through unwarranted updates during the morning news) and am in no way a legal expert (or even close), but from the very beginning had the sickening feeling that this was the OJ trial of this decade. and sure enough, after 6 weeks of testimony and less than 2 days of jury deliberation, the verdict was in: not guilty.
just as i had been in 1995, at the tender age of 14, i was... stunned. appalled. wondering how someone who could appear to be so guilty could be acquitted. very aware of how similar this was to what happened 16 years ago.
but i also thought of another case that i first read about in a magazine on a plane: the amanda knox story. this was also a woman who appeared to be lying, who did not appear to be grieving "correctly" (i am not claiming that there is a right or wrong way to grieve) and who had alot of circumstantial evidence stacked against her. but her trial ended very differently.
so why do i bring this up? because if you think about it, while your gut could tell you to judge on appearances alone, our justice system was not built that way. we need evidence. evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty of the charges against them. and in casey anthony's case, the prosecution failed to do just that. (and just on a side note, it's crazy that even with the kind of forensics i never thought i'd see in my lifetime, some cases can remain unsolved). so while i've seen people jury-bashing and raving about our country's "unfair" legal system... well, in my opinion (and removing all my feelings about this subject, which is terribly hard), this may have just proved that the system actually works the way it's intended to.
the saddest part to me in all of this is after 3 years, no one is any closer to figuring out who murdered an innocent toddler. and it will probably always remain a mystery.
