Stupid jurors

I don't watch CNN or MSNBC or any television news if I can avoid it, so the only thing I knew about the Casey Anthony trial was from the Net. But I see the jury returned an acquittal.

Given the ghastly nature of the crime and the thoroughly sleazy conduct of Ms. Anthony, this has ignited the predictable firestorm of critical comments. And it's these that I'd like to examine.

First, a surprising number of commenters defended the verdict, saying "Just because you don't like the way someone acts doesn't mean they're guilty of murder. Obviously that's true, but when these commenters were questioned as to their reasoning most of 'em said one of 3 things:

• "By law, you can't convict on circumstantial evidence," or
  
• "Circumstantial evidence is not evidence," or
• The state didn't prove murder beyond all doubt.

All 3 statements bother the hell out of me. First, circumstantial evidence is not only perfectly acceptable, but it's perfectly legal to convict someone based solely on such evidence. It's just that one rarely sees a case based entirely on circumstantial evidence because there's usually at least a piece or two of physical or forensic evidence that seals the deal.

And second, as most rational adults with an IQ above 99 know, the test to find the defendant guilty is not "beyond all doubt" but beyond a reasonable doubt. And based on my casual sample I suspect at least a third of the populace doesn't understand that.

Which brings me to the notion of stupid jurors.

Even though I didn't watch the case, posters on the Net kept us all abreast of the major revelations. Chief among these:

• After her daughter allegedly disappeared, Ms. Anthony said nothing about this to anyone, for 31 days;
• During this time she partied extensively, and showed no indication whatsoever that anything was amiss;
• This period of apparently carefree partying only ended when the defendant's mother--not having seen her only granddaughter in a month--asked Ms. Anthony where she was.
• This reportedly led to a screaming fight, after which the defendant's mother called the police.
• The defendant then told police she'd dropped her daughter off with a babysitter, at the latter's apartment. When the cops said "Show us where she lives" the defendant identified an apartment that had been vacant for many months. If I recall correctly, she later admitted her story was a total lie.
  
• In court, the prosecution was unable to ask her why she told this lie, since she chose not to testify.
  
• When the defendant's car was recovered, two witnesses reported a strong odor in the trunk, which they identified as decomposition. I've also read (but can't confirm) that when the trunk was opened, it was filled with "thousands" of flies.
• Finally the little girl's skeletal remains were found in woods near the home--with duct tape wrapped around the mouth area.
• Police examiners found that the defendant's home computer had been used to search for the term "chloroform" something like 48 times.
• The defendant's mother claimed she had made the searches. However, her work records showed she was at work when the searches were made.
  
• As noted above, the defendant did not testify at the trial. However, the defense floated the theory that the two-year-old had drowned in the grandparents' pool and that the defendant might have tried to make this look like a murder for some reason. However, she had been jailed for almost 3 years (unable to afford bail), and all during this time she had never mentioned an accidental drowning--a revelation which could well have gotten her released until trial.
  

To me a conviction--if only for negligent homicide--should have been a slam-dunk. Unlike cases where a body is never found--thus allowing the defense to claim the missing person isn't even dead--in this case the victim was found, and the questions are a) how did she die, and b) who did it?

The most damning evidence--circumstantial, certainly, but also powerful--is that 31 days elapsed between the time the defendant acknowledges the victim was no longer in her care and the day the grandmother notified police. During this time the defendant partied often and showed no indication that she was worried or even concerned. This is obviously not the behavior of a mother who doesn't know where her child is.

This suggests Anthony knew exactly what had happened to her daughter. And there's no reason to believe the accidental drowning theory (with the defendant's father allegedly helping dispose of the body), since the defendant's father was a ex-cop and would have known that no criminal liability would attach in such a case.

The only explanation that makes sense is some form of unlawful killing--though it certainly could have been by accidental asphyxiation from chloroform and duct tape over the little girl's mouth.

The fact that the jury took only ten hours to return the not guilty verdict suggests that none of them was troubled by any of this.

This is consistent with the conclusions of many other analysts that the general populace is slowly becoming less educated--and perhaps more to the point, filled with ideas that simply aren't true.