Can circumstantial evidence convict Casey Anthony? Yes, it can.
Much ado was made about the local Florida news special on whether or not the prosecution has enough evidence to nail Casey with the death penalty. They insinuated there could be a big hole in their case. Their contention was there was a mountain of circumstantial evidence against Casey Anthony, but is that enough to convict? Without knowing the cause of death, can the prosecution seal the deal?
“The prosecution still has no evidence how she died,” attorney Richard Hornsby told WESH 2 News. “Was it accidental or intentional? If their goal is to get the death penalty, they need to come up with that evidence. It’s way too weak.”
“It suggests a certain level of commitment or premeditation,” Tom Luka, Lee Anthony’s ex-attorney, and a prosecutor of around 50 homicides, countered. He says prosecutors can use Casey Anthony’s own lies and deception to fill the hole in their case. “If it was an accident, then the prosecution can hammer the jury with why didn’t she come clean initially,” he said.
We all know that Caylee’s autopsy gave no indication of how she died–though there were clues (like the duct tape) that it might not have been accidental, and the coroner stated flatly that she ruled it a homicide. Still, there are a lot of folks following the case that don’t believe Caylee was murdered and that it could very well have been an accident. They argue that without hard evidence of how Caylee died, it would be hard for them to convict Casey of premeditated murder.
Again, I say, really???
In the United States, the law shows no distinction between circumstantial and direct evidence in terms of which has more weight or importance. Both types of evidence may be enough to establish the defendant’s guilt, depending on how the jury finds the facts of the case.
So, what do we know about the facts the state has? We know there was a rare type of duct tape found on Caylee’s skull and on George’s gas can. We know there was a smell of death in Casey’s car. We know the decomposing single hair found in the trunk belonged to either Caylee or Casey (obviously wasn’t Casey’s). We know about web searches for chloroform and neck-breaking. We know that she didn’t report her child missing for 31 days while she partied like there was no tomorrow. We know she didn’t report Caylee missing at all–her mother did. We know her friends say she acted perfectly normal during those 31 days. We know about her deception and the wild goose chases she took LE on instead of helping them look for Caylee. We know she was serial liar. We know there was no Zenaida Gonzales. This is some of the circumstantial evidence we KNOW the prosecution has, and just a few examples of her “suspect” behavior. This doesn’t count the stuff the prosecution has kept under their belt or will be releasing in the months leading up to Casey’s trial in 2010.
Circumstantial evidence –especially the amount of evidence we’ve seen is very definitely enough to convict Casey Anthony. Very few murder trials have hard evidence available to them. I mean, unless someone witnessed the murder, isn’t most of it circumstantial?
What is the difference between circumstantial and direct evidence?
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that does not expressly prove that the person on trial is guilty of the crime. Rather, it infers that the person is guilty. An example of this is showing a receipt for a knife that the defendant purchased, thus inferring that the same person committed a crime with that knife.
On the other hand, direct evidence straight-forwardly shows that something is a fact without inference or presumption. An example of this is the testimony of a witness who saw the knife being used to commit a crime by the defendant.
Correct me if I’m wrong, please!
read it here: