|"Party, party, party!"|
I can understand the doctrine of "presumption of innocence." I agree with it. I also agree that it is better to let 100 guilty persons go free than convict one innocent person of a crime that they did not commit. All things being equal, I would have voted to acquit too.
|Cheney Mason, Casey's Defense Attorney|
Shows What He Thinks of Justice
Casey's admitted destruction of critical evidence should have been held against her. Instead, her destruction of that evidence resulted in her acquittal. How just is that?
All of these factors revoke the "presumption of innocence" in my mind. Someone who is acting very guilty and who has destroyed the evidence needed to determine how Caylee died, should be presumed to be guilty at that point. If the guilty verdict convicts an "innocent" person in this case, then that's just fine -- because that person convicted herself by her lies and her actions -- just like Scott Peterson did when he murdered his wife in 2002.
Casey Anthony is a pig, but there is nothing more we can do. The jury has rendered its verdict, and no matter how asinine, we are stuck with it. Be aggravated and angry today, but then let it go. Anthony will not escape cosmic justice.
Read more about the acquittal in the UK Mail Online.