"I guess I have to respect this verdict. I think it's a travesty."

That's a quote from a talking head that I heard on the news just now.  It makes me sick.

It seemed obvious to me that there was not enough evidence to convict Casey of anything (besides lying, to which she admitted), and I am delighted that the jury was not contaminated by the state's emotional appeals and faulty logic.  I am disgusted that TV's talking heads (which nearly unanimously were sharpening their guillotines) are now back pedaling, but instead of saying that they were wrong or pretending that they predicted this, they are angry that Caylee will not get justice.

The media was, for the most part, a mob that riled up the viewers to gnash their teeth, awaiting a guilty verdict.  I have been loosely following the trial (catching some but not all live coverage everyday, the summation on the nightly news, and talking heads discussing the case) and watched the closing statements.  Some of the things covered in the defense's closing statements were not even mentioned in the state's closing statements, nor were they mentioned in the news.

The rabid talking heads are recognizing that Casey is guilty but not convicted, and they see that Casey received justice, but the dead child did not -- because her not-guilty mother will not be penalized.  These talking heads are completely neglecting that only a mob mentality can consider penalty for unproven guilt to be "justice" for the injured party.   It's like they're saying that justice is more important for one person than another, which is so anti-American that I am nauseated.

Here is the Talking Heads' worst offense, when discussing justice for Casey/ justice for Caylee:  These things are one in the same.  Court cases are not about one side versus another, although the play we watch on TV certainly sets it up that way.  It is about uncovering the truth.  Barring an obvious truth, it is about presuming innocence.  When two parties go through this process and a verdict is found, both sides have received justice.  Bim bam boom.

The jury found that the state could not conclusively prove that Casey murdered Caylee.  Let's say Casey is innocent.  How is her time in jail and possible execution justice for the daughter?  Anyone who argues that Caylee

A few things that I was disappointed were not discussed by the rabid media (who devoted MORE than enough time to these trials... therefore had the time to nitpick every damn bit of minutia, every possible angle... yet I never heard these things mentioned.)

Liars and truthers and evidence, oh my!
The defense continually pointed to X and said it was not evidence of what a sane innocent person would do, wherein X was behavior inconsistent with presumed innocence.  Then, in a blink of an eye, they would point to Y and say it was evidence of what a guilty person would do, wherein Y was behavior inconsistent with presumed innocence. (I hope I wrote that right.)  So which is it?  Her behavior was inconsistent with both a person who had committed a crime and a person who had not committed a crime.  Her weirdo behavior, when looked at as a whole, was only evidence that Casey is a weirdo.

"Whose life is better now?"

The state used this in their closing, referencing Casey's tattoo and the grandfather's alleged suicide attempt.  Well, hmm, if the grandfather felt excessive guilt for Caylee's death, might that be a reason to attempt suicide?  Just sayin'.  The Talking Heads assumed the father was innocent and that an innocent person would react to the situation by committing suicide.  There was talk about whether or not his suicide attempt was actually a suicide attempt (e.g. why not use his gun?  Why use heart pills and a six pack?), but I heard no one say that a suicide attempt could indicate guilt.

"Bella Vita -- the Good Life"  (Casey's tattoo)

What was the meaning of the tattoo?  Obviously, it was evidence that proved the motive: Casey killed Caylee.  Check your premise.  If the tattoo were evidence, who testified that Casey said anything about why she got the tattoo.  Why not ask?  The tattoo artist was on the stand, why not ask him what the tattoo meant.  What if her reason was that it was her favorite passage from a book about grieving. What if it meant any number of things?  They used the tattoo as evidence, but there was no proof that it was evidence of anything other than Casey got a tattoo.  

Let's just say...

When you have grieved after a death, has anyone ever told you that the deceased wouldn't want to see you cry?  Or that everything, even the most horrible things, happen for a reason?  Or when God closes a door, somewhere he opens a window?  Or that something horrible happened, but you have a long, beautiful life ahead of you in which your living a beautiful life can be a monument to everything that the deceased was and would have been?

The jail tapes!

I've watched them.  (I may not have seen all.  Were there many?)  What I heard discussed was that Casey was super mean and self-centered.  I'm sorry, but if I were in jail for a crime I didn't commit, I would be angry and self-centered, too.  I would also be angry, and I might lash out.

I could rant about more details, but I'm going to stop.  For now.

Am I saying that Casey didn't do it?  NO.  Am I saying that I think she did or didn't do it?  NO.  I'm saying that the beauty of this country is that it's not up to us, the general mob, to make the decision.  We trust that the courts will honor their pledge to be just, and we honor their verdict.  They concluded that Casey is not guilty.  

That should be good enough for the rest of us.  

The 24/7 media did not exist when our justice system was created.  Obviously, we are granted the freedom to speak our minds about this; however, the determination of guilt was meant to be determined in the courts, not in the press.  I'd go as far as to argue that the court system was specifically set up to PREVENT verdicts from being determined by mob rule. 

I am curious to see how much different media outlets discuss this verdict -- and in what way(s).  That will certainly help to further my views of which media outlets are most true to American founding ideologies.  And, really, can you trust someone in the media who does not believe in the ideologies of the best governing system ever created?  (The governing system that provides them with the freedom to partake in their profession, btw.)