Anthony acquittal surprised most people, but it’s history

The Casey Anthony trial will go down in judicial history as a case of tragic overreaching by a prosecution that was long on zeal and short on provable facts.

As the latest “trial of a century,” the acquittal of Casey Anthony of the three serious charges involved in the death of her daughter, Caylee, was bound to be compared to O.J. Simpson’s acquittal 16 years ago in the murder of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman. But Simpson’s prosecutors had a treasurer trove of physical evidence tying him to the murders. That jury was blinded to the evidence by a defense strategy that attacked the credibility of the police and prosecutors.

In the Anthony trial, prosecutors came to court with an impressive tapestry of circumstantial evidence. It told the story of a mother who was the last person known to be in the company of her daughter, who lied about Caylee’s whereabouts and invented a nanny who took the child, and who lived a carefree life of boyfriends and bars that was inconsistent with that of a mother whose child had gone missing.

A classic description of the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence involves snowfall. If you witness the snow falling, it’s direct evidence. If you go to bed at night and there is no snow on the ground, but wake up to find snow on the ground, that’s circumstantial evidence that it snowed. Somehow, some jurors have come to view circumstantial evidence as not rising to the level of proof needed to overcome reasonable doubt. Maybe it didn’t snow; maybe somebody trucked that snow in overnight from someplace that had too much snow.

Casey Anthony’s jurors were obviously convinced that she lied about her daughter’s whereabouts, but they were unwilling to go where they prosecution was convinced those lies should take them, to the conclusion that Casey killed Caylee.

The way they read it

The prosecutors were so sure of their reading of the circumstantial case that they were convinced any jury would come to the same conclusion. But for this jury, the absence of a cause of death or other physical evidence on the body of a small child left in the elements for seven months was enough to keep them from being able to reach a verdict on the murder charges — or even a charge of child endangerment.

In addition, Casey Anthony was the recipient of a perversion of a defendant’s the Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination. In opening statements, the defense was able to plant a seed that Casey’s father, George Anthony was present when his granddaughter drowned and that he helped dispose of the body. Also, to the extent that Casey was a flawed human being, it was the result of alleged sexual abuse by her father and her brother.

Casey’s lawyer could not ethically make such assertions unless he had reason to believe them, and the only reason he would have to believe them is if Casey told him it was so. In effect, Casey was able to testify through her lawyer in his opening statement and yet never be subject to cross examination.

And a jury that was willing to overlook all the circumstantial evidence that pointed to Casey’s guilt, gave enough weight to a lawyer’s unsubstantiated claims on the first day of the trial to undercut the prosecution’s case.

Verdict is the last word

Nonetheless, the jury has spoken and the public must accept the verdict — as the prosecutors’ ostensibly have.

Certainly people are free to feel that Casey Anthony got away with murder, and those who come in contact with her are free to shun her — as many did to Simpson after his acquittals.

But those who are talking about retribution of some kind are out of line. There is no place in this society for vigilantes of any stripe.

Casey Anthony will likely be set free shortly, perhaps before this day is out — based on three years already spent behind bars. For some, that will be justice. For others it will be a travesty. And, if she manages to cash in on her celebrity with book or reality TV or movie deals, that will be the ultimate insult to Caylee’s memory.

But that’s the way the system works, and we all have to live with it. But no one will ever be forced to buy a book or watch a program from which she might profit. Any blood money she might make off the death of her daughter can only come from those who choose to be part of her enrichment. And shame on them.