What's It To Ya?

I'll admit that I haven't paid a lot of attention to the Casey Anthony trial.  However, I HAVE been watching with fascination the reactin of the crowds of spectators and wondering, "What's it to them?"

I don't know if Casey killed her daughter in cold blood, accidentally, or if the child somehow got into the pool unattended and drowned and Casey panicked and hid her - or some other scenario - and neither do those rabid spectators. I tend to believe the jurors when they say the prosecution didn't prove their case. In a trial where there is the possibility of a death sentence, I would expect the jury to deliberate for an extended period of time id they were divided.

The fact that this jury came back with a verdict of not guilty so quickly tells me the extent of their reasonable doubt.  It suggests that the trial left more questions in their minds than answers. And, that the decision was unanimous from the get-go.Now, the prosecutor has decided to retire, and he's not exactly leaving on a high note.

The question in my mind is what has caused so many people to overreact about the verdict?  They can't possibly know what actually happened.  But, you'd think they all had some intimate knowledge about the case or some personal interest in it.

Now, y'all know that I have a theory about practically everything that happens and this case is no exception. Here's what I think. Since those spectators don't know the first thing about what really happened, I suspect they are simply always looking for things to be enraged about. Something like the Anthony trial, with all its media atention, gives them an excuse to vent the anger they feel about their lives in general.

Once again, we can condemn the media for their unquestioning acceptance of Anthony's guilt. Nancy Grace (or, I like to think of her as Nancy DISgrace) is notorious for jumping to the conclusion that anyone who is accused and arrested for a crime must be guilty.  But, she and the media don't get to decide, and hat's a good thing..

Another thing the media has put forth is the idea that being found not guilty doesn't mean the accused is innocent.  At least one of the jurors in this trial has bought into that.

The fact is there is no such thing as a verdict declaring a person is innocent. As far as the law is concerned, a person is either guilty or not guilty. Case closed.   

All I can say is Thank God we don't depend on public opinion for our verdicts. This prosecutor didn't prove his case, pure and simple  Juries like to have solid evidence, not just circumstantial, before they decide to put someone to death. And, personally, I wouldn't have it any other way.

After the O.J. Simpson trial, attorney Jerry Spence said,  "If he did it, just remember, you can't beat the big one".  By that he meant O.J. will ultimately be judged by a higher power, and he won't be able to beat that one.

That might be something to remember when we think about Casey Anthony.

Stay tuned.

And, Furthermore.............

The Washington media and the whole of the U.S. House of Representatives gave 'way to their inner adolescents last week as their outrage reached a crescendo over Rep. Anthony Weiner and his texts.  They simply relished Weiner's embarrassment, which was nothing but political theater on their parts.  As they elbowed their ways to the nearest microphones, they could scarcely find enough pompous words to condemn him for sending the salacious texts to several women.  Absolutely everyone who is anyone in Washington or the media jumped on the old Weiner bashing bandwagon.  Oh, they had a fine time!

But, there was one area they ignored.  I didn't hear a single pundit or congressman chastising the women who were willing participants in this farce.  On his show, "Real Time", Bill Mahr and "Glee's" Jane Lynch (I think that's her name) did a dramatic reading of one of the texts sent by Weiner to the woman in Las Vegas.  I gotta tell ya, folks, the things SHE said struck me as being a lot dirtier than Weiner's replies to her. Maybe I'm just old fashioned (or sexist) enough to be appalled by women like her, and at the same time expecting nothing better from Weiner. Believe me when I say these women are not victims or innocent parties.  Obviously, they had been around the block a few times.  Oh, yes they had. They don't get a pass - not from me, at least.

Now, Weiner says he is taking a "leave of absence" (read, "vacation") to "get some help for his problem." Do we believe him?  We do not. I wouldn't be a be surprised if we heard, in due time, that he and his beleaguered wife, Huma, were on an extended cruise, taking a leaf from Newt Gingrich's playbook when he needed to step back and retool his failing campaing.  When the going gets tough, the tough take vacations.

In the meantime, I read an article today saying that many members of Congress have cut back severely on their own texting. Hah! That's probably a good idea, although if they have anything to hide, I'd say they are a little late for that.

So, bon voyage, Anthony and Huma. In a couple of weeks some other politician will do something worse and you'll be forgotten like yesterday's newspaper. 

Stay tuned.