Many surprised by jury verdict
by Jerome Wassmann
Jul 10, 2011 | 764 views | 0 0 comments | 6 6 recommendations | email to a friend | print
Jerome Wassmann
Jerome Wassmann
slideshow
The acquittal of Casey Anthony this past week has raised the eyebrows of many, not only here but around the world. When the jury came back from deliberations in about 11 hours most thought that the verdict was guilty. It seems most juries that come back in that short of time when deliberating a case of such magnitude have pretty much been convinced during the trial that the individual is guilty.

However, in the case of Ms. Anthony, it was just the opposite.

No doubt this will be one of those cases that will never, ever go away, much like the case against O.J. Simpson. There are just too many, both lay persons and lawyers, that feel there was guilt of some kind in addition to the guilt of lying to the police.

I have noticed that most national newscasts as well as special news programs have continued to ask the question, "Why wasn't she found guilty?" The sad part about the entire situation is that we will more than likely never know what actually happened to little Caylee Marie Anthony. All we know is that she was found dead six months after her disappearance.

The biggest question in my mind about the case is that she was not reported missing for a month. That seems more than quite unusual. In my mind it seems unbelievable. Being a parent myself I would have reported the disappearance of my daughter (or son if I had one) in less than 24 hours. Especially if they were small like Caylee was. That I believe is the biggest question in everyone's mind and the question that most folks would like an answer to.

I cannot imagine sitting on a jury that had such an awesome responsibility, deciding the guilt or innocence of a young lady who was the mother of the deceased child. And after hearing five weeks of testimony and trying to keep all of the information brought out in trial in proper perspective would be mind boggling, at least for me. I know the authorities have kept the names of the jurors private, and for good reason. The animosity some folks have felt about the outcome of the trial has been a concern by law enforcement and the judicial system. I can only imagine the stress the 12 jurors and alternates felt when coming to a decision on the fate of the accused. It had to be monumental.

I did not have an opportunity to watch much of the trial, getting what little I knew about the proceedings from either the newspaper or on the national news, so to say I am very knowledgeable about the trial would be a serious overstatement. Like so many others I was simply listening to what the reporters perceptions were in regards to the trial.

I know the prosecution team was greatly disappointed in the final outcome but had affirmed they had presented all of the evidence they had and felt they had done the best job they possibly could under the circumstances. I think they may even have said it was not like you see on the TV programs, the prosecution presents the evidence and the individual is found guilty. Because of the length of time before Caylee was found, much of the evidence that would have been helpful to the prosecution was no longer available. Again that is something that we will never know.

The defense attorney, Jose Baez and his legal team, did an outstanding job of defending their client. They put enough doubt in the mind of jurors that an acquittal was the end result. That was the job they were hired to do and they did it well. With the high profile of the case their reputation as defense lawyers certainly rose to the top, much like Johnnie Cochran's did during the Simpson trial.

The case is now over and the verdict has been rendered. But it no doubt will be a case that will be discussed for many years to come.

Jerome Wassmann is editor and publisher of the Daily Mountain Eagle.