So a jury of her peers found her not guilty and it set off a wave of dissent and anger. As I sat with my aunt, yesterday, watching the verdict and post trial punditry go on and on about how shocked they were and how they couldn't believe she got off, there was one thing mentioned that got brushed over. They all admitted that the public had more info than the jury. They admitted but didn't want to harp on the fact that the general public knew more that the jury. This was a very important fact. The jury ruled based on the evidence that was given to them. Obviously, the prosecution didn't present a good enough case to convince the jury of the defendant's guilt. I've heard a lot of people talk about how unemotional the lady was or how she was out partying while her child was missing, and how it took her so long to report the child missing. All of those things look bad, but they don't necessarily prove her guilt. That's what the public needs to be made aware of. We can't send people to jail based on the suspicious things they do. Our justice system has been criticized numerous times over the years, but sadly enough it's the one we have and in this case it worked just the way it was supposed to. The jury was selected, they were presented with evidence and they ruled based on that evidence. So if people want to look at someone to be upset with, then point your blame at the prosecution. Did Anthony commit the crime...we may never know, but the system worked the way it was supposed to. Feel free to comment. Let's talk about it.
Posts
