For The Grain Of Salt It’s Worth: My Thoughts On The Casey Anthony Verdict

I’m going to say from the outset that I watched this trial as little as I could.  That said, it was on so incessantly that I learned a fair amount about it whether I wanted to or not.

Before I say anything about the Casey Anthony verdict, let me explain why I didn’t watch much of the trial.  Three Words: O.J. Simpson.

The O.J. Simpson verdict was such an obvious miscarriage of justice that it sickened me.  It was for the criminal justice system what Watergate was for politics.  The result of both was an accurate sense of cynicism and a profound degree of distrust in justice in America.

I still think back to the O.J. verdict and what had preceded it: the “bad” verdict in the case against the officers who participated in the Rodney King beating.  Do you remember the riots?  Remember Los Angeles exploding into fire?  Remember that white truck driver who was dragged out of his truck by black rioters who then proceeded to smash his skull with a brick?  And why did they do that?  Because of the injustice they saw in the case against the police officers who had beaten Rodney King.

And the same black people who had been so appalled at the miscarriage of justice then felt entitled to not only riot, but then issue yet another miscarriage of justice: O.J. Simpson was found not guilty because he was black.

Don’t get me wrong.  Racist blacks getting even with racist whites just barely even scratches the surface that has resulted in the death of truth in our postmodern culture.

That case, and many others since, have poisoned my trust in the American justice system.  There are so many bad juries and bad judges and bad lawyers and bad prosecutors that you might as well spin a wheel and accept the results.

So we’ve got the next exciting jury trial (and why so many people can get so into this sordid crap is itself an indictment against the moral depravity of our society).  You can watch every days coverage, you can watch just about every minute of coverage, and the bottom line is that what you see has virtually nothing whatsoever to do with how the jury votes.

Personally, it frightens me that I could have my fate decided by a group of people who are so morally idiotic and so freaking stupid that they actually voted for Barack Obama for president.  The sheer number of stupid and depraved people appalls and frightens me.  And that number is growing by leaps and bounds.

Now, from what I saw, Casey Anthony was guilty, guilty guilty of killing her daughter.  Her kid was missing for a month or more, and I would have spent more time looking for a lost cat (and I’m a DOG person!) than Casey spent looking for her daughter.  She then tells one lie after another to explain away the missing daughter.  Cadaver dogs reacted to Casey’s car.  Extremely high levels of chloroform were found in Casey’s car.  The body of little Caley Anthony still had duct tape that had clearly covered her face.  No one else had anything to do with this girl’s death or her being thrown out like garbage in a trash bag but Casey Anthony.

And she’s going to walk and probably sell her story.  The cynic in me says that Larry Flynt will offer her a lot of money to pose nude in his magazine (maybe Anthony Weiner will be setting that up with his Tweets).

Whether it was premeditated or accidental (although how does duct tape get “accidentally” wrapped around a kid’s nose and mouth?), Casey Anthony is the only one who was involved.  And she’s going to just walk away.  Probably with a lot of money (although I understand the judge could deny her the ability to profit from this case because of her four convictions for lying to investigators in the case).

I guess it was a retroactive abortion: and Casey exercised her “right to choose.”  And how dare we question a woman exercising her right to choose to kill her baby?

I’m disgusted by this verdict.  And what’s worse, I actually cynically KNEW all along that I’d end up being disgusted by this verdict.

I write this as someone who has been watching his culture going to hell for the last twenty years.  And then sees to his horror that the pace of that descent into hell has picked up as it marches faster and faster.  And in goose step, too.

Tags: , ,

40 Responses to “For The Grain Of Salt It’s Worth: My Thoughts On The Casey Anthony Verdict”

  1. Truth Unites... and Divides Says:

    “Personally, it frightens me that I could have my fate decided by a group of people who are so morally idiotic and so freaking stupid that they actually voted for Barack Obama for president. The sheer number of stupid and depraved people appalls and frightens me. And that number is growing by leaps and bounds.”

    That’s the funniest-sad thing I’ve read in a long time. I had a good belly laugh.

    There’s probably a theological lesson in there somewhere.

    “Personally, it frightens me that I could have my fate decided by a group of people who are so morally idiotic and so freaking stupid that they …..”

    Jesus had his fate decided by stupid and wicked people when He went to the cross. He suffered it all with incredible grace and love.

    Mike, I think we’re going to have to take up our cross and be reviled and persecuted by stupid and wicked people too.

    And I’m a person who detests people with a persecuted-victim complex.

  2. HL Says:

    I have felt deeply troubled and sad since I heard the news of Casey Anthony being found not guilty for the murder of her daughter.
    What has troubled me the most is what you articlulated in this post about the jury. It is scary to face that too many people in America no longer know good from evil and right from wrong.
    What saddens me the most is that Caylee is dead. Where is the justice for that little girl?
    I’m a mom and a grandma and I can tell you NO mother who loves her children would respond and behave as Casey Anthony did if her child was missing.
    The other tragic part of this case is the accusation of sexual abuse against her father.
    The whole think is sick and sad.

  3. Robbie Says:

    Obviously something horrible happened to that child – whether an accident or murder – we do not know – and the evidence was poor and the junk science reminded me of global warming science.

    Hopefully this young and deranged woman – who seems to think any attention is welcome attention – will use this soon to be freedom to take her life in a more productive direction.

    Personally I think the death was accidental and she should have also been charged with illegal disposal of body – which is another 2-5 year sentence.

    We dont live in banana republic a politburo or dictatorial state whereas they would rather 10 innocent be found guilty than one guilty go free. Meaning evidence case must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt rather than mob rule.

    Our Founders were clear – the Constitution – Bill of Rights were intended for moral men and woefully unfit for any other.

    Living in Freedom Liberty has some risks/disappointment but they are worth it.

  4. HL Says:

  5. Robbie Says:


    Unfortunately in this country it is perfectly legal to be a deranged mother and complete a@$#$%.

  6. Robbie Says:

    “your two year old is missing for 30 days and you dont call the police…” – this trial will end up being remembered as a prosecution’s blunder – whether due to what they charged her with or their voodoo junk science/evidence – rather than a defense victory.

  7. Michael Eden Says:


    I agree with you that the time is coming when Christians are going to be severely persecuted for their faith. If you look at the number of martydoms, it went to its height in the 1970s as the Soviets and Chinese persecuted Christians by the millions. Then it began to drop (first in fear of Reagan, and then following the collapse of the USSR).

    Now it is spiking again. Because the wicked know they can get away with it, and no one will do anything about it. No one will stand up and shout. No one will say, “This is wrong, and you’re going to pay for what you’ve done.”

    When the persecutions come, to a very large extent, it will be because we sat on our hands and did nothing when we had the chance.

    And second, when the persecution, comes, Truth, I am literally trying to put myself out there so that they come for me in the very first wave. Because it’s going to get harder and harder to be courageous and stand up for the truth AFTER they start kicking down doors with warrants for the arrests of “intolerant” Christians.

    You’re right, Truth. Jesus said, “the world will hate you because they hated Me first.” But that’s not the issue I’m decrying.

    Because of the Judeo-Christian worldview, and because of “Christiandom,” the West and Western Civilization flourished and became powerful. We weren’t perfect then, but we were MUCH better than than we are now. The reason that Christians are under the worst attack that they have EVER been under in the formerly Christian West IS BECAUSE CULTURE AROUND US HAS BECOME WICKED WHILE WE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE SALT AND LIGHT, AND BECAUSE WE STOOD BY AND DID NOTHING WHILE IT BECAME TOXIC ALL AROUND US.

    I think back to Charles Martel and the Battle of Tours. The forces of militant Islam had poured ALL across Europe ALL THE WAY TO FRANCE. And no one could or would stand up and stop it. 100 years after the death of Muhammad Islam was an unstoppable force, and Christendom itself was on the verge of becoming a Caliphate. But ONE guy stood up and fought, and routed that Muslim army and turned the tide. And the question is should we be like Charles Martel, or should we be like all those who crumbled when they should have risen up and fought for their values and their faith?

  8. Michael Eden Says:


    Many are making this about the prosecution deciding to go for 1st degree murder. It’s portrayed as swinging for the fences or striking out.

    But that jury COULD have said not guilty on 1st degree murder and then guilty on the child abuse/neglect charges. They let her off scott free, and they didn’t have to by ANY legal standard.

    They are responsible for that. It is no surprise that not a single juror would sit in the media chair and answer questions. Instead, they decided to pursue a means by which they could sell their stories and enrich themselves.

    Bad people. Bad verdict.

  9. Michael Eden Says:


    Was there “junk science” used? No question. Almost ALL the “junk science” that was used by the prosecution was stuff related to “the smell of death” that was in Casey’s car when it finally showed up.

    But I’ll tell you what: FORGET THE JUNK SCIENCE. Cadaver dogs signalled that a dead body had been in that car. And THAT aint “junk science.” Dogs’ senses of smell are beyond phenomenal.

    I have heard several lawyer/TV personalities provide the “banana republic” scnenario you share. I have also heard Janine Pirro – a former judge as well as a lawyer – who says that’s baloney. She points out as a professional and as a judge that this case DID meet the evidentiary standards for a conviction.

    People are talking about “they didn’t prove murder.” What about all those cases where someone was rightly convicted of murder when they couldn’t even find the victim’s body?

    Then there’s the fact that there has NEVER been a case in a child’s death by drowning when 911 wasn’t called AS SOON AS THE BODY WAS FOUND. That and the fact that the body had duct tape all over the face was the basis of the coroner RIGHTLY concluding that a homicide had taken place. So the prosecutor has to prove that something that has never happened before didn’t happen???

    Here’s my defense from now on: a space alien body double looking just like me did it and then beamed back to the mother ship. And if you can’t prove that space aliens DON’T exist and that one DIDN’T commit the crime looking like me, YOU MUST ACQUIT ME. Because that seems to be the standard.

    Casey Anthony’s attorney alleged in his opening statement a scenario that was never provided a scintilla of supporting evidence: that she was molested by her father, et al. How are you to prove a negative? YOU prove as an evidentiary FACT you never molested your kid if I say you did. Since it didn’t happen, there’s no “evidence.” There’s no evidence because it never happened.

    We live in a “CSI” world in which the police are expected to have expertise and use equipment that doesn’t even EXIST in the real world. In episode after episode, specialists that no police department has using equipment that no police department has solve impossible cases. And if you can’t solve the impossible case like I saw them do on TV, the verdict is “not guilty.”

    But let’s get beyond the first degree murder thing. That jury still had a LOT of options, even if they didn’t go for murder. They also found Casey Anthony not guilty of aggravated child abuse and aggravated manslaughter of a child. They could have and should have convicted her of these charges – and even most of those who said the jury should NOT have convicted her on the murder charge fully expected her to be convicted of these charges.

    The ONLY reason that little girl is dead is because of Casey Anthony. The ONLY reason that little girl ended up with duct tape over her face and her body stuffed in a garbage bag like trash is because of Casey Anthony.

    Casey Anthony should have been held responsible for that, and the jury COULD have held her responsible for that.

    But they refused to do so.

    I go back over what is not in question. This little girl vanished. No one knew where she was. Casey Anthony – the last person who’d been with her – is out partying and getting laid and getting tatoos (which by the way DOES constitute a motive; she was free to go party now. Susan Smith did the same thing. Shaquan Duley did the same thing). Finally the family wants to know where she is. And Casey Anthony says a babysitter who never existed had her. Ultimately it goes to the police. Casey Anthony didn’t call the police regarding her OWN child; Casey’s mother called. The same Casey’s mother who said Casey’s car smelled like a dead body was in it. The police get invovled, and Casey continues to say that Caley is okay, that she’s with this bogus babysitter. But Caley WASN’T fine, was she? She was dead. And the only reason Casey had to lie about it was that SHE HAD KILLED HER.

    I don’t think this is about the Constitution at all, Robbie. I think it is about a society that is no longer capable of holding anyone responsible for anything (at least unless someone is guilty of being a conservative), and which simply lacks the moral wisdom and the moral will to hold people responsible.

    Should the prosecution have gone after 1st degree murder? Probably not, because of some of the things you point out. But that jury most certainly COULD have and SHOULD have held Casey responsible for the lesser but still serious charges of aggravated child abuse, and they refused to do so. It’s almost as if they were in a snit against the prosecution and decided to punish them at the expense of justice for Caley.

  10. Truth Unites... and Divides Says:

    “When the persecutions come, to a very large extent, it will be because we sat on our hands and did nothing when we had the chance.”

    Heh. I despise passive cowardice masquerading as some virtue.

    “And second, when the persecution, comes, Truth, I am literally trying to put myself out there so that they come for me in the very first wave.”

    Serious Q. Don’t you have a wife to love and kids to raise? How does it serve them and love them if you’re removed?

  11. Michael Eden Says:

    I’m not going to run out and slap the first Nazi. But the alternative is cowering now so I can cower more later.

    If they’re going to convict the Christians for being Christians, I sure hope they’ve got the evidence to put me away.

    I think the command was first to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind.

    Adam’s sin was choosing to be with his wife rather than with his God. Is that a tradition we’re supposed to continue?

    I think back to Nazi Germany. Would you have wanted to be a Deuteronomy 31:6 “Be strong and courageous” believer, or would you want to be a cowering one hiding behind his wife? In my case, I would rather they take me away in the first wave, rather than have to decide to stand up AFTER they start coming for us.

    Believe me, it will get harder and harder to be brave once the persecutions start. That’s the way it always is. And the rationalizations to do nothing will become more and more numerous and more and more powerful. Which is why I say, “Let them come for me FIRST.”

  12. Truth Unites... and Divides Says:

    I’ll be in the first wave too.

  13. HL Says:

    The bottom line is the people on that jury were UNWILLING to RIGHTLY JUDGE Casey Anthony and hold her accountable for her daughter. It is humongous evidence that our society has become stupid and moral idiots as you so well state.
    This unwillingness to RIGHTLY JUDGE matters and STAND UP FOR TRUTH is destroying us.

  14. Robbie Says:

    Not the Constitution specificlly – but the Bill of Rights or Casey using the protections offered by citizenship – jury of her peers et al -which you could argue in this case the jury was made of her peers – like Casey morons.

    I didnt follow this case closely and have only mentioned what the prosectution seemed to be putting their hopes on – junk science etc I would have stuck with a simple argument of why after 30 days did she not report her child missing – as everything else was a distraction and led the jury astray.

  15. Robbie Says:

    And if you listen to the Dennis Miller clip – fyi I do enjoy his point of view on many things – some I do not – the banana republic scenario plays out.

    Yes they had a body found close to the house – but no cause of death, no evidence linking anyone to the body – other than a smelly car – a car in FL has a stench? – high humidity.

    Sounds like the jury was mortified by having to let her off. And Casey defense attorney did what defense attorney do attempt to create doubt in the mind of the jury in any way possible – way to combat that is a simple straightforward prosecution – what happened in IL Blago II simplified case he was found guilty – Blago I jury found confusing.

    Thats all I got – I didnt follow the case or get emotionally attached aside from being digusted by this womans behavior throughout the last 3 years.

    MSM moment of Julie Chen being unable to continue on morning show – found odd – how many thousands of babies are aborted every year – now the libs are upset? – really – dna wise what is the difference between a fetus and 2 year old.

  16. Michael Eden Says:

    I think it’s coming, Truth.

    As one example, the militant homosexual agenda is going to ensure that the good pastors will either be fired or jailed in about ten years for “discrimination” and “intolerance.”

  17. Truth Unites... and Divides Says:

    “As one example, the militant homosexual agenda is going to ensure that the good pastors will either be fired or jailed in about ten years for “discrimination” and “intolerance.””

    I know that you can’t imagine this, but do try. Suppose these good pastors are fired or jailed. Can you imagine the criticism and rebuke and disrepute these good pastors will receive from many sheep in their own congregations and from other pastors for being so divisive and harsh and unloving and legalistic in their unyielding stances? These charges must be true for otherwise they would not have been jailed!

    You know you’re in for a hard time when your own turn against you.

  18. Michael Eden Says:


    I would first say that there are often wildly different ways of thinking that still end up with the same conclusion. One guy might study and evaluate and decide “X,” versus another guy who doesn’t think at all and arbitrarily picks the same “X.” And then there’s the guy who studies and evaluates and chooses something different, and ends up completely wrong because he had a key presupposition wrong in his decision-making.

    I also notice that this case is NOT falling upon political lines: as an example, conservative Jeanine Pirro says she should have been convicted; conservative Sean Hannity says she should NOT have been convicted.

    Having mentioned Jeanine Pirro, I’ll say it again, however: here is a woman who has been a career prosecutor and judge, who has her doctorate of jurisprudence. And she says as a legal expert that this case met the burden of proof. And I agree with her annoyance at the argument that if you believe Casey Anthony is guilty and should have been convicted, that you are a Nazi who is in favor of tearing our Constitution OR our Bill of Rights to shreds. That is a complete red herring.

    It comes down to what constitutes “beyond a reasonable doubt.” It’s not not I says let’s throw out that standard; it’s that I believe that standard was met in this case.

    What is “reasonable” to conclude happened to that girl? Who else was involved if not Casey Anthony? I mean “reasonably”? If you want to say Caley could have drowned accidentally, I’m asking, “Is it “reasonable” to think that her “good mother” didn’t bother to call 911 when IN EVERY SINGLE OTHER SIMILAR SITUATION 911 WAS CALLED AS SOON AS THE BODY WAS DISCOVERED? Why would I be “unreasonable” in believing that something that’s never happened before didn’t happen? Particularly given the ocean of lies the accused – the ONLY person involved in Caley’s disaapearance – told one lie after another explaining away the absence of this little girl?

    And again, throw out the “junk science.” The proseuction should have practiced that simple Keep It Simple Stupid philosophy, but just ignore the junk. It is NOT “junk” that the cadaver dogs alerted to a dead body having been in Casey’s car; it is NOT “junk” that extremely high levels of gases that come from decomposing bodies was found in that car. And the fact that some people said they smelled death and other people didn’t a week later means exactly SQUAT; because the “experts” at smelling are DOGS. And the DOGS smelled death in that car.

    And so, it seems to me that the question is whether a “reasonable” person should be able to discard what doesn’t mean squat and focus in on what is clearly highly relevant. Throw out the “expert” in “smellology” and KEEP THE DOG WHO CAN SMELL CANCER IN PEOPLE’S BREATH!!!!

    Dogs can detect if someone has cancer just by sniffing the person’s breath, a new study shows.

    Ordinary household dogs with only a few weeks of basic “puppy training” learned to accurately distinguish between breath samples of lung- and breast-cancer patients and healthy subjects.

    “Our study provides compelling evidence that cancers hidden beneath the skin can be detected simply by [dogs] examining the odors of a person’s breath,” said Michael McCulloch, who led the research.

    Notice that that isn’t “certain really cool dogs.” That’s just a garden variety dog. Your dog wagging its tail and drooling on you. Their senses of smell are that keen and that accurate.

    How is THAT not “reasonable”??? There was a dead body in that car, and I know that because dogs who can literally know if you have cancer by smelling your BREATH smelled death in that car. THAT is reasonable. An ounce of that degree of testimony is worth a thousand pounds of junk science testimony. How is someone ignoring the Bill of Rights to throw out the junk science and zero in on THAT?

    The other thing you said, Robbie, is true. Casey Anthony can never be tried again for the murder of her daughter. Rightly or wrongly, she was found not guilty by a jury of her peers (even be they morons), and she is protected by the Bill of Rights which we both believe in.

  19. Michael Eden Says:


    I will probably never actually serve on a jury, because I have a background that includes law enforcement, and I am always invariably excused by the defense. It doesn’ mean I don’t get a jury summons dang near every single year; it just means that if I am “lucky” enough to be randomly chosen to be seated I can count on sitting through the voir dire crap until they get to me so I can finally be excused.

    If I had been sitting on that jury – which of course wouldn’t actually have happened – I would have held out for a guilty verdict. Why? Because almost everyone – even those who say the evidence wasn’t there to convict this female cockroach – acknowledge that she probably killed her daughter. And by holding out, I would have given the prosecution a deadlock. Which would have meant they probably could refile the case and cleaned up their mistakes.

    That is how I would have tried to stand up for the truth.

  20. Robbie Says:

    I place blame on prosecution – you on the jury.

    We had a case a few years back – Riley Fox – where Father confessed under duress – not sure how that happens – and after 5 years he is let out of prison – sues the county for millions and a sex offenders dna matches up to the crime.

    And yet another where a Father was accused of murdering his daughter and her friend – he also spent time in prison and was later released. Have forgetton the name – was also in IL.

    Neither went to trial – but in both instances bodies were found near home or area familiar to accused – there was cause of death – some dna etc. As these were all over tv most reasonably assumed the Fathers were likely guilty – based on tv facts – aka prosecutor leaked info about evidence etc – yes prosecutors also try cases in the media in addition to the court room.

    What they lacked was failing to call police after 30 days when child was missing. Again based on my limited knowledge of case – you dont try and fake what you dont have. Even placing the body in her car – does not mean she put it there or was aware of it – what of the shovel testimoney? And her actions recordings are so schizo they reveal a screwed up young woman more than anything else.

    For crying out loud we still dont know what happened to the Lindberg baby – baby disappears with virtually no evidence of being taken from home – yeah a long time ago but review it and one could point the accusing finger at the Lindbergs.

    Ann Coulter had a great column yesterday!

    God Bless you for your time Michael I realize you are churning out wisdom daily via your blog.


  21. Robbie Says:

    And if we were fighting communists, nazis aka violent liberals – our task would be easy but we are fighting marxists – progressives who seek to destroy from within – and they are invested our govt like cochroaches.

    Gun Control, destroying marriage ie the Homosexual agenda, Abortion, liberalizing Education, govt Healthcare are some of their main tenets – and literally the only thing they have war rooms for – cause we know there is none for actual war. Libya is just supporting muslim spring aka mob rule .

  22. HL Says:

    I watched the first segment of the O’Reilly Factor last night. I greatly appreciated Mr. O’s clear thinking opening talking points and his interview of the state prosecutor. O was cutting through the BS and diplomatic verbage like a sharp sword. It was refreshing. He then had a clip of a juror who had been on ABC. The idiocy that came out of that woman’s mouth, Jennifer ?, was crazy making.
    It absolutely confirmed the stupid, moral idiocy of the jurors who decided this atrocious verdict. It is distressing beyond words to me.
    It is really hard to stay optimistic these days.

  23. Michael Eden Says:


    I watched the O’Reilly comment also. And I appreciated it because he said EXACTLY what I’ve been saying.

    This vile woman killed her child. She did it. No one else did it. And then she proceeded to lie about where her kid was for over 30 days, and DELIBERATELY misdirected the poilce.

    Given the fact that in no documented case of an accidental drowing of a child did the parent NOT call 911 immediately, what should the reasonable person conclude as to the cause of death???

    The burden of proof has gone out of control because we’ve become a morally stupid people.

    There’s a term in ethics called “moral velocitization.” It refers to the fact that our morality is spinning out of control, and what is bad now leads to it being worse next year, and then much worse the year after that. And the same thing is happening to our laws. Take the homosexual agenda: the courts are now FORCING homosexuality on the military “because of the Constittuion.” Our founding fathers who WROTE that Constitution would have screamed in outrage and then started picking up muskets to pick off these vile judges.

    Ideas have consequences. “A living breathing Constitution” is a document that means nothing, that means whatever liberals want it to mean, and which in absolutey no way is a guide to future generations. And the same is true with the Bill of Rights.

    We are watching our country spinning out of control.

    All that said, the Bible has been preparing us for “the last days” for 2,000 years. And we’re finally at the door to the Antichrist, the tribulation, everything we were taught would happen.

    But GOD WINS in the end. The scales of justice WILL be balanced. The guilty WILL pay for their crimes.

    The Casey Anthony verdict reinforces the FACT that human justice will NEVER be adequate; ultimately there is only ONE WAY that the world will ever see justice – and that is the One Who called Himself “The Way, the Truth and the Life.”

  24. Michael Eden Says:


    In terms of the “Riley Fox” thing, we clearly don’t have a situation in which Casey Anthony had a confession beaten out of her and that confession was the primary basis for conviction. Which is to say that Riley Fox is non sequitur here. Rather, we have NO confession – only a documented avalanche of LIES fromt he accused – and we have a substantial array of damning circumstantial evidence.

    When a child disappears, and when the person who was last with that child repeatedly lies about that child’s whereabouts, THAT is itself powerful evidence against that person. Particularly when you combine it with all the other evidence. And you can’t acquit somebody based on ridiculous unsubstantiated theories without destroying the very possibility of justice. But that is what the jury did.

    Further, just who do you “reasonably” think will turn out to be the REAL killer in the case of Caley Anthony? Again, it’s non sequitur.

    Yes, I place blame on the jury. The only juror who has spoken out said that the jury didn’t publicly defend their verdict because they were sick. They knew she was guilty, but thought they couldn’t convict. My response to that is then why on earth didn’t someone hang that jury and hold out for guilty so the prosecution – if THEY were indeed responsible for a bad case – not get another chance to present a better case? It seems to me that these people were in more of a hurry to go home than to see justice done.

    As a result of that jury verdict, Casey Anthony will never be punished in this life for her crime. As a result of that jury verdict, there is no chance of justice in this life for Caylee Anthony.

    I’d actually also be interested to hear how the prosecution is responsible for the not guilty verdict. Again, if you throw in the “junk science” stuff (and that is a legitimate criticism), I still point to the REAL science and documented fact stuff that should have resulted in Casey Anthony’s guilty verdict. As an already offered example, the fact that dogs who can smell cancer in your body, whose noses are so keen that their handlers literally RUN them past baggage and cars so that they can smell drugs, overcomes the fact that the same prosecution also used a man who claimed he could “smell death.” I submit that no reasonable person disbelieves overwhelming evidence of something merely because that overwhelming evidence is accompanied with some extraneous “junk science” garbage. The jury should have recognized that a dead body had clearly been in Casey Anthony’s car and simply ignored the “junk science.”

    The shovel testimony? I’d be interested to hear how that shovel story means I should have determined that Casey Anthony was not guilty.

    What I’d be MOST interested in is a reasonably alternative to what the prosecution says happened being offered. Caley drowned and her father covered it up because he’d molested her? Was there any evidence presented in the trial to support that whatsoever??? Does a “reasonable burden of proof” mean having to prove negatives? If I demanded that you prove you never committed a rape in your life, could you do it? What evidence would you offer to overcome my “reasonable doubt” that you were a rapist? And again, there was ZERO evidence/testimony supporting that wild allegation. The ONLY place it came from was Casey’s attorney, who said he’d prove that in his opening statement. It was NEVER mentioned again.

    So that story is out. What other story is there that is reasonable and which explains the facts of the case?

    I’ll look for the Coulter column.

    Obviously, we disagree on this verdict. I note you’ve also got conservatives such as Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham (who is a lawyer) on your side. I have to confess I find that dismaying. But it’s not like you can’t look around and point to a lot of decent people who are in your boat with you.

    I DO know the solution for making sure we never put an innocent person in prison: NEVER have trials to begin with.

  25. Michael Eden Says:

    What is interesting is that the Marxists are firm believers in wars of liberation.

    And we’ve got Samantha Powers and her “responsibility to protect.”

    THAT doctrine can be extended anywhere. It can be applied against Israel; it can also be applied against Republicans who are “warring” against unions.

    Marxists actually LOVE war, when war works for them.

  26. Robbie Says:

    “The Real Killer” – look I agree this is a crime that is a product of this twisted family. Again body (in car) – no cause of death, no evidence – then who do you charge with murder – yes likely the last person (and parent) who has lied for months about everything. But as a juror how can you be sure it was murder and not an accident?

    Before DNA wasnt either a confession or eyewitness required for conviction of murder? And that was only 20 years ago.

    Better yet you would think Ted Kennedy could have reasonably been charged with negligent homocide or at least manslaughter. He was last to see mary jo – lied again and again/ changed his story multiple times…

    “The jury should have recognized that a dead body had clearly been in Casey Anthony’s car and simply ignored the “junk science.””

    Michael you know better than that – a jury should willingly ignore testimony – this runs counter to the explicit jury instructions.

    Some points I brought up ie shovel – I was wondering what the consequence of that testimony was – and did/do not have specific knowledge of it.

    In our legal system the burden of proof is on the state – meaning she could have offered no defense whatsoever rather than the sophist/made up odd scenarios of father molesting her etc sort of along the lines of oj real killers theory. And that also means she doesnt have to prove her father molested her.

    I think she guilty but what I think does not matter. Rule of law a phrase libs hate so much and burden of proof is what matters.

    Pirro frequent guest on fox news stations/ Oreilly are moderates who put their finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing – to maximize ratings – fyi they can be tracked every 15 minutes on tv. Is oreilly still trying to figure which three people in the world are in charge of high oil prices? One of his odd conspiracy theories!

    And I am not including you as a moderate or putting your finger in the wind as by your blog of several years can strongly attest to your Christian/Conservative values.

    Legal genius Mark Levin and Rush can be included with Hannity and Ingraham.

    ” I DO know the solution for making sure we never put an innocent person in prison: NEVER have trials to begin with.”

    Michael you should also read Coulters new book Demonic – goes through French Revolution or as I was taught in school the tale of two cities.

    But more importantly the idea of mob rule which our founders were against and it only promotes the “general will” of the people of whatever particular moment. As upset as you are with this verdict I know you would not advocate a “general will” of who is guiltly or not vs a jury system – As then our society has denigrated beyond what you have described.

    God Bless

  27. Robbie Says:

    My understanding is the communists kill off the socialists/marxists once they have gotten control.

  28. Michael Eden Says:


    On your view if there is no body discovered – and if that body once it IS discovered does not yeild considerable forensic details that would have been ENTIRELY UNAVAILABLE to every preceding generation in the sum entirety of human history – then a guilty verdict becomes impossible. No matter how much evidence there is. And I point that out because NO, you did NOT have to have an eyewitness or a confession to convict of murder. We have ALWAYS had cases based on circumstantial evidence. We had rules regarding such evidence going back to Blackstone’s Commentaries. And in fact eyewitnesses and confessions are often the MOST unreliable elements of a case. All kinds of studies have been done proving what poor observers most people are (to go along with false IDs in criminal cases), and YOU YOURSELF raised an example of a case with a confession being BEATEN out of a guy.

    Ted Kennedy did NOT get off because sufficent evidence wasn’t presented; Ted Kennedy got off entirely because of his family and political connections. In spite of his guilt and the evidence supporting it. And Democrats voted for him because Democrats are just that loathsome.

    Let us take this case. Caylee accidentally drowned. Mother finds child. Mother horrorified. Gets baby out of pool. Mother calls 911. Emergency crew rushes to rescue, only child dead. Autopsy concludes death by drowing. Probably an accident. It is reasonable to conclude no homicide occurred. End of story.

    But that isn’t what happened, is it? So let’s take it as it happened.

    Baby disappears. Last person who had child says she’s with her babysitter. Baby continues to be gone for 31 days while mother tells one lie after another as to her whereabouts. Mother now shacking up with boytoy who wouldn’t allow baby to sleep over. Mother misdirects police when they get involved. Babysitter never existed. Baby eventually found in a shallow grave, having her face smothered in duct tape and wrapped in several garbage bags. Cadaver dogs alert to presence of dead body in mohter’s car. Mother lied and lied and lied while baby decomposed and decomposed and decomposed. Research confirms and documents that there had NEVER BEEN A SINGLE CASE in densly populated Orange County, Florida in which an accidental death by drowning had not been IMMEDIATELY reported.

    And you’re saying it was reasonable to conclude that the death was accidental. I’m stunned by that.

    I’m simply appalled by this statement after citing me, Robbie:

    “The jury should have recognized that a dead body had clearly been in Casey Anthony’s car and simply ignored the “junk science.””

    Michael you know better than that – a jury should willingly ignore testimony – this runs counter to the explicit jury instructions.

    And the REASON I’m appalled is that I made that statement only after having AT LENGTH demonstrated that the cadaver dogs who detected the presence of the dead body in the car WERE THEMSELVES ENOUGH TO ESTABLISH AS A FACT THAT A DEAD BODY HAD BEEN IN THAT CAR. And that any and all “junk science” was totally extraneous to that fact.

    Here’s the best analogy I can come up with. Suppose you claim the earth is round, and I say it’s flat. So you show me the curved horizon; you show me pictures of the earth from space; you provide maps and show how accurate they are. But you want to provide as much support for your claim as you possibly can, and so you bring in a witch doctor who “establishes” that the earth is round using parts from a chicken. Am I warranted to dismiss the proof that the earth is round because of the addition of the witch doctor and his “junk science”??? Seriously???

    Again, I documeted the accuracy of dog’s noses. Dogs are THE experts in smelling. Dogs trained to detect dead bodies determined that there was a dead body in that car. There was a dead body in that car whether a witch doctor also came in to claim there was or not. Period.

    You yourself raised the issue of the shovel as somehow possibly exonerating Casey Anthony. But apparently not for any actual reason. It’s just another red herring. You ALSO said quote, “I place blame on prosecution – you on the jury.” To which I challenged, “I’d actually also be interested to hear how the prosecution is responsible for the not guilty verdict.” I’m still waiting to hear how the prosecution was responsible for this not guilty verdict across the board.

    On your view, Robbie, which terrifies me as to the possibility of justice on this earth,

    If I am on trial for murder, and I claim that prior to the murder, I had been beamed up into an alien spaceship and an exact duplicate had been made of me, and it was in fact that duplicate that had committed the murder and not me, how is the state to prove that space aliens did NOT in fact duplicate the accused???

    I also asked you earlier, if you don’t think it’s reasonable to conclude that Casey Anthony is a murderer, then just what exactly DO you think it is reasonable to believe??? Think of Occam’s Razor here: the simplest explanation that fits the facts is the one that should reasonably be believed. And just what is your alternative simplest explanation that fits the facts, based on the evidence that was presented in the case?

    Rush Limbaugh? I’d heard other things from him such as this one: “Rush Limbaugh on Casey Anthony verdict: “Just tell yourself she waited a couple years to get an abortion and you’ll feel better.”

    On the Bill O’Reilly program, 90% said Casey Anthony should be found guilty, versus 10% who said she should be found not guilty. Does that mean I win? Well, you’re happy with the twelve randomly chosen idiots, but apparently not with the millions of O’Reilly viewers. Does citing such “support” really matter? I cited Jeanine Pirro – who had been a lawyer, judge and district attorney, and who has her doctorate of jurisprudence – as an example that the burden of evidence and reasonable doubt had been met. You seem to think that someone like Pirro – with her career accomplishments AND her education – doesn’t really understand the law. You CLEARLY cannot wave at “the law” and say it’s on your side.

    You previously cited a man who had had a confession beaten out of him as a direct comparison to a girl who “disappeared” her baby and made up stories while that baby rotted. Now in your conclusion you are essentially saying that to believe the state’s case and DISBELIEVE a thousand-times-over documented liar is tantamount to “mob rule.” Again, that is just non sequitur: if I wanted “mob rule” I’d go shoot Casey Anthony along with the jurors who set her free (and I’m not booking any flights to Florida, for the record). Beyond that, not wanting “mob rule” appears to be thinking that the more you can destroy evidence, and the more you can tell lies, the more “not guilty” you should become.

    Remember, Robbie. Just a few years ago our “laws” did not allow gay people to marry or openly serve in the military and undermine unit cohesion. Now those same laws FORCE us to respect gay people marrying and FORCE us to allow homosexuals to ruin our military. A generation ago WE DID NOT HAVE THE KIND OF CAPABILITY TO UNCOVER “CAUSE OF DEATH” THAT WE DO NOW. And we STILL do not have the means to do one fraction of what most “jurors” believe the state is capable of doing in terms of forensics. Which means that more and more jurors are unreasonably expecting evidence that simply cannot possibly be provided.

    Something else is going on beyond the fact that I’m pushing us toward “mob rule.”

    One last thing re: this notion that “a juror must obey the judge’s instructions” type thinking. Does it not occur to you that this ends up running into the “Nuremburg Defense” (“I was just following orders; I cannot be held responsible for what I did”) dilemma? Does our Constitution say the Nazis shouldn’t be held responsible because they only did what they were told to do, or does it support the belief that there is a higher justice that transcends your “instructions”?

  29. Michael Eden Says:

    My understanding is the communists kill off the socialists/marxists once they have gotten control.

    I have a theory on why that is (it also happened with Hitler and the SA who brought him to power).

    Two things:

    1) Socialism doesn’t work economically. Ultimately the socialist leader needs to have some kind of a fall guy, someone to sacrifice to appease the anger over the failure.

    2) Socialism doesn’t work politically. Ultimately the “theorists” who so brilliantly think up socialist ideology are simply not capable of surviving political reality any better than they are at economic reality. And just as their ideas/policies undermine the economy, they also undermine the chances of the political leader(s) being able to remain in power. They become an embarassment, because they actually always should have been an embarassment to begin with. And so they’ve got to go.

  30. Robbie Says:

    I brought those other cases up as those were instances where many including me were so sure they were guilty – with every DA leak to media over years – and we were wrong. Similar to what I experienced with this case – what came out the preceding years vs the trial ended up a deflation in terms of a case excluding Caseys behavior which inflated in bizarrness – this is my opinion on what I noticed since this began.

    Brought up Ted K cause thought it was funny and like to mention every chance I get that he a sitting senator murdered a woman and still spent another 40 years in the senate. Certainly you can tell when I am joking.

    The shovel wasnt a red herring – nor was anything else I have written (intentionally) My understanding as this was a problem area in testimony – wondered why.

    Also I apologize for any and all generalities – its not productive – re convicting for murder without eyewitness or confession – was asking based on your le experience.

    Junk science was referring to the idiot taking air from the trunk – maybe it will someday be a proven science – it is not right now and that was a distraction and made the da look like they were reaching. This is a failure on their part and surely the jury will not ignore part of the testimony that puts the body in the trunk as there are instructions to the jury. What they are specifically I dont know.

    And comparing our legal system to the nuremburg trials makes little sense.

    In general I dont have a favorable opinion of Oreilly based on a few things. Oreilly is rino-ish (and has 5-6 million viewers on a great night). Pirro is just someone with a TV show now.

    Maybe its disappointing how flawed our legal system can be. Rule of law – the Burden of proof etc. Charged with murder or crime one does not have to offer an alternate murderer or even a likely scenario of what occurred one must only create a reasonable doubt in the mind of the jury even if it seems so unreasonable to the rest of us.

    That j#$#off gov of ours Blago in his first trial offered no defense and was only found guilty of one count lying to the FBI. In his second trial he couldnt play the same trick twice and his Caseyesque lies and misdirection fell upon deaf ears and he was found guilty on many counts.

    Current laws and the framework of our legal system – rights and protections are like comparing apples to oranges.

    Current laws like gays involved in I dont know everything even though they are what 3-5% of the population. Gays are just one of the collection of ‘special’ interests of the dem party someday they may wake up and realize this likely (unlikely) right after they realize being gay is a choice.

    Rights and protections – fair trial, trial by jury are federal protections while execution of these may differ state by state. Fl allows trials to be shown on tv and 7 days a week. IL no tv and jury trial is at judges discretion – mon – thur?

  31. Paul Wilson Says:


  32. Paul Wilson Says:


  33. Michael Eden Says:

    I’ll start with one thing you said that leaped out at me:

    In general I dont have a favorable opinion of Oreilly based on a few things. Oreilly is rino-ish (and has 5-6 million viewers on a great night). Pirro is just someone with a TV show now.

    I compare that with a previous point you made:

    Legal genius Mark Levin and Rush can be included with Hannity and Ingraham.

    I then proceed to take your logic re: Jeanine Pirro (whose 30 years as a lawyer, judge, and district attorney along with her doctorate in law apparently was blotted out and somehow ceased to exist) is “just someone with a TV show now.” Versus Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh who are by comparison somehow NOT “just a couple of someones with a radio show now.” I’m simply stunned by how selective your reasoning process is in this case.

    You tell me “The shovel wasnt a red herring.” But after being asked twice you never bothered to tell me what the significance of it is that would somehow exonerate Casey Anthony. Which pretty much makes your mentioning of it a red herring.

    As were these other cases you brought up. Unless you are arguing that the police beat a confession out of Casey Anthony, as you said happened in one of these other cases. Which of course they didn’t.

    I hate having to say the same thing over and over, but am forced to do so here. You said:

    Junk science was referring to the idiot taking air from the trunk – maybe it will someday be a proven science

    And how many times have I said that can be completely discarded because of the fact that the cadaver dogs smelled a cadaver in that car? And how many times have I mentioned the proven scientific FACT as to how accurate dogs’ sense of smell is? Again, as I have already pointed out:

    studies have shown that dogs can detect breast cancer just by walking by patients. And their accuracy combined with their number of false positives actually is BETTER than the scientific methodology of the mammogram. See:

    A quote from a different article: “Other scientific studies have documented the abilities of dogs to identify chemicals that are diluted as low as parts per trillion.” See:

    And you are still actually telling me that the jury was obliged to ignore THAT because the prosecution also used some guy who looked at the air in the trunk. So on your view the jury should ignore something that is factually true if they don’t like ONE of the other demonstrations of that fact that has already been proven to be true?

    Comparing our legal system to the Nuremburg defense makes PERFECT sense if jurors use the EXACT same excuse to acquit themselves of responsibility that the Nazis used: “we were simply following instructions.” At some point you have a moral obligation to consider that maybe you’ve got a bad instruction and you shouldn’t follow it no matter WHO is giving it to you.

    You are WRONG when you say “Current laws and the framework of our legal system – rights and protections are like comparing apples to oranges.” You are COMPLETELY wrong. Let me provide a couple of quick examples: you find me Miranda rights in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. You show me where I can find that in those documents. Or how about sequestering that jury, so they couldn’t go home? Where’s the ability to impose that on a juror found? Can you show me in the Constiution? I’m waiting. And there is now a mountain of rules regarding exculsion of evidence that are found nowhere in our founding documents. JUST LIKE THE “LAWS” GIVING “CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS” TO THE MILITANT HOMOSEXUAL LIFESTYLE, THESE THINGS AND MANY, MANY OTHERS WERE SIMPLY CREATED OUT OF THIN AIR.

    Again, we think of the alternative “story” that would have to be “reasonable” to believe if Casey Anthony didn’t kill her kid. As EVIDENCE produced in trial, we find from eyewitnesses to Casey that there was NO change in her affect before and after her daughter went missing. It was like she lost a doll she no longer cared about. She goes out partying and shacking up and lying. For thirty-one days she lies to the police, including fabricating a babysitter who she claimed had this kid. Who was of course dead. We find that Casey Anthony’s mother was found to be LYING and PERJURING HERSELF when she claimed she had searched for the chloroform stuff; she was PROVEN to be lying because it was PROVEN that she was at work when these searches were made on the home desktop computer. So who searched for the chloroform stuff if it wasn’t Casey, Robbie? WHO?

    So the little girl goes missing. The last person who was with that little girl doesn’t give a damn that she’s gone (that’s proven), she makes up a phantom culprit (that’s proven), and she does everything she can to mislead and misdirect the police (that’s proven). She was reasonably the ONLY one who could have done that chloroform search on the computer. Then when the little girl is finally found, she has duct tape covering her nose – as if lo and behold someone had administered chloroform to put her to sleep and then wrapped her face in duct tape to ensure she’d never wake up. And, oh yeah, a dead human body had been in Casey’s car.

    Now allow me to bring in my theory of space aliens. And if you can’t PROVE that space aliens DIDN’T abduct me and DIDN’T create a double, then you pretty much have to acquit me. Because that’s our new standard – and CSI would be able to prove that an alien clone didn’t commit the murder by the end of the episode, after all.

    The juror who has spoken out has said all kinds of ridiculous and false things. One of the things she said was that the prosecution didn’t produce a motive (yes they did; they provided the same motive that has been the motive of other murdering mothers such as Susan Smith and Shaquan Duley), and that you have to have a motive to convict someone of murder (NO YOU DON’T!). Here’s an obvious counterexample: I shoot someone at random in broad daylight in front of a gazilion witnesses. But why did I shoot that person? No one knows because it was a random shooting!!! But they’ve got to acquit me in that idiot Casey Anthony juror’s mind BECAUSE THERE WAS NO MOTIVE. And that shows what kind of idiots sat on that damn jury.

    I paid attention to the Scott Peterson case because it happened in my hometown of California. And thank God the jurors weren’t as stupid as the Casey Anthony jurors, because it too was a circumstantial case with a badly decomposed victim. Those jurors can talk about their experience and the case BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE NOT OUTRAGED AT THEIR VERDICT even after seven years’ chance to find out it was a bad verdict. And that was because he is one guilty sonofabitch who deserves to die.

    Not so with the Casey Anthony jurors. Because most people realize that jury rendered a terrible verdict and basically destroyed any chance of justice for a beautiful little girl who would still be alive if it wasn’t for her selfish slut mother.

  34. Michael Eden Says:



    Casey wants to have another baby. Because darn it, she can’t kill the one she already killed again, can she?

  35. HL Says:

    Michael, you have done a great and thorough job documenting the facts and evidence against Casey Anderson.
    I don’t know why it is hard for some people to believe this young woman could be selfish enough to kill her daughter.

  36. Michael Eden Says:


    In a Gallup poll, 69% of adults said they believed there are no moral absolutes. That relativism has extended even into the churches. It has gotten worse and worse SINCE that poll showed 7 in 10 Americans denied absolute truth. For instance, take the moral relativism in supporting the notion that marriage is merely a convention that can be changed at any time which underlies gay marriage.

    In a world without objective absolute truth, it gets harder and harder to say, “Guilty.”

    That’s my big point here.

  37. Robbie Says:

    Pirro and Orielly arent conservatives mark levin and rush are. Would you compare McCain Romney with a Bachmann Rubio or Ryan?

    TV – And to me its important cause I see those with hour long tv shows where ratings can be tracked almost by segment to be more interested in ginning up the topics that play ratings wise. whereas a three hour radio program is a different animal – levin now has 8.5 million listeners rush 25m.

    And other than this case how many things of Oreilly do you agree with?

    I thought we agreed earlier that rinos are as dangerous as liberals.

    And of Pirro legal exp – I am sure in the future you will not cite Kagan or Sotomayer for the years of legal whateverthehell got them on the supreme court! They both tried to sound like moderates at the confirmations – Oreilly must have been happy with their selections.

    the rest you are starting to repeat yourself and sophistry if you will – and as LE I know you are aware of the realities of jury trials.

    I will go back reading your current work. Sorry I engaged you on this issue.


  38. HL Says:

    To appreciate and agree with O’Reilly’s or Pirro’s clarity and boldness is speaking the truth about the Anthony case is NOT endorsing them on other positions or their political affiliation.
    They got it right in this case, period.

  39. Michael Eden Says:


    Few things about your line of reasoning.

    The first one is that I think for myself. And I believe that independent thought is itself actually a component in being a real conservative. The idea that I should think “x” because Marx Levin thinks “x” or even (gasp) Rush Limbaugh thinks “x” is quite appalling to me, actually. If Jesus Christ thinks “x,” THEN I want to make sure I think “x” also. Do you think Jesus thinks Casey Anthony didn’t commit this crime, Robbie? Seriously, I’d like to know what you think Jesus thinks. Because HE’S the One Guy whose opinion seriously matters to me.

    Second, the popularity in terms of numbers of followers. Rush has 25 million does he? Levin 8.5 million? Wow, that’s a lot. I guess I should think whatever they think, then.

    Oh, wait. I know a guy who had 55 million followers. His name was Adolf Hitler, and he was an evil sonofabitch who didn’t turn out to be so right after all.

    There have been times in human history when one man was right and every single other human being on earth was wrong. So this idea of citing number of listeners to “prove” something doesn’t really do much for me, either. But again, that’s because I always seek to think for myself.

    I brought up Jeanine Pirro NOT because she is a “conservative” or because her TV show has however many million viewers, but rather because she is a career professional legal expert with the edcucation and experience to make her opinion on something like “was there enough evidence to convict?” relevant. She was one of many who believe that there was adequate evidence for a jury to convict. Clearly, there have been other cases in which there was even LESS evidence to convict. Here was a report on the autopsy result of Lacey Peterson’s body:

    The autopsy said that the cause of Laci Peterson’s death was undetermined, and there was no evidence of man-made wounds, despite the fact that her head and all or part of her limbs were missing.

    Peterson’s body was so badly decomposed it barely looked like a body after it was found in San Francisco Bay last month.

    I’ll say it for the record: I’m glad that jury that convicted Scott Peterson and gave him the death penalty didn’t think like the Casey Anthony Jury. And if Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin would have acquitted that murderer, then I’m glad they weren’t on that jury.

    Third, this notion that I should think whatever Rush and Mark Levin think because they are “conservatives,” but I should NEVER agree with Bill O’Reilly or Jeanine Pirro because they’re “RINOs” doesn’t hold much water for me personally, either. Nor does the idea that I would absolutely never under any circumstances cite Kagan or Sotomayor. You know what? If they were right about something, I would want to take their side. I’m sure that at SOME point in her career I even agreed with Ruth Bader Ginsburg!

    All that to point out that it is not my intention to be on Mark Levin’s side or Rush Limbaugh’s side; it is my intention to be on the side of truth.

    And I very firmly believe that the TRUTH is that Casey Anthony murdered her little girl. I think the TRUTH is that the jury in fact DID have the sufficient evidence to determine that she was guilty of that crime. And I think the TRUTH is that if they believed she was guilty but lacked the “evidence” to convict, they could have and should hung the jury to allow a retrial which would have prevented the disgrace to justice of a verdict in which Caylee Anthony will never receive justice on this earth.

    You haven’t provided ANY of Mark Levin’s or Rush Limbaugh’s explanation why Casey Anthony should be found not guilty. This leads, I submit, to the worst of the liberal charge of being a “Dittohead” who spits out whatever Rush says we should think. I, on the other hand, have repeatedly pointed to the EVIDENCE.

    As an example, the smell of death in Casey’s car. Has Mark Levin explained how trained cadaver dogs alerting to a dead human body in that car means it is unreasonable to conclude that Caylee’s dead body was in that car?

    Another one is the recent developments in the computer search. Casey Anthony’s mother falsely testified that she did the searches for the chloroform. We now know it is a FACT that she did not, because the company provided the records that show that the mother was not only AT WORK, but logged in to her account at work and sending out emails at work during the period those searches took place. Has Mark Levin explained why it is unreasonable to conclude that Casey Anthony was doing that search?

    Did Mark Levin explain why we should believe that it is unreasonable to conclude that a girl who turns up dead when last seen by the mother who then repeatedly lies and points at a suspect that she invented shouldn’t have doubt placed upon her? Did he explain how a suspect can lie and lie and lie like that and not be reasonably believed to be a murderer at all?

    Did Mark Levin explain that the fact that never in history has a parent who found a drowned child EVER not immediately called 911 has nothing whatsoever to do with reasonably believing that a parent who didn’t do something that no innocent parent had ever done wasn’t an innocent parent?

    Glad to continue to have you as a reader.

  40. Michael Eden Says:


    I search my Bible, my soul (where God meets me in prayer) and my conscience for truth. And then I go out and look for it in the world.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: