Indulge me, please, in yet another take on the Casey Anthony case to add to the hundreds you’ve already read and heard in the print and electronic media.
Last week’s verdict, absent of the widespread outrage that Ms. Anthony is indeed responsible for the death of her child, has great value as a lesson in our system of jurisprudence.
The raw emotion brought forth by the real-life tragedy conditioned a large portion of the American public to assume Ms. Anthony’s guilt, and subsequently, the jury’s “obligation” to affirm that guilt.
It didn’t happen that way, and for a reason.
People are confusing their instincts about her culpability with what the state of Florida — and all other 49 states — requires to render a guilty verdict.
The state never connected her directly to Caylee’s body and never firmly established a motive. That leaves the door wide open to “beyond and to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt.”
The jury walked right through that door.