The trial of Casey Anthony has been, and still is, one of the most publicized media events in recent memory. Casey was charged with murdering her own daughter. When the trial was over she was found to be not guilty and you would think that that would be the end of it. But that has not been the case. Instead, there has been an enormous amount of moral outrage expressed by everyone from private citizens to high profile media personalities.

The purpose of this blog is not to re-try Casey Anthony, but to explore the validity of the outrage expressed after the verdict was read.

Many media personalities such as Nancy Grace have stated publicly that Casey Anthony ”got away with murder”, but is that true or even fair?

The problem is that we seem to have lost sight of the real issue, and that is whether or not Casey Anthony was guilty of murdering her daughter beyond a reasonable doubt as determined by a jury of her peers based on factual evidence gathered and presented by the State of Florida representing the people of Florida. Her defense was able to create reasonable doubt so the jury had no choice but to find her not guilty as charged.

The important distinction here is the difference between fact and emotion. The members of the jury may very well have thought (in their own minds) that Casey Anthony murdered her daughter, but they had to base their verdict on evidence (at least on the evidence that they were allowed to see and hear) and there simply wasn’t enough to overcome reasonable doubt.

On the other hand, the media tried and convicted Casey based on the “absence of evidence” that anyone else had motive, means or opportunity. What I mean by that is since no one else was found who had clear motive, means and opportunity then it must be Casey. This, of course is an emotional response due to frustration generated by an inability to find evidence that clearly pointed to “someone” as the childs killer. The police and the media chose Casey because they thought her actions after her child went missing were “inappropriate”. That is adequate for suspicion, but not for conviction.

The bottom line is that no matter what the media or the general public believes, the facts are that the police could not find any evidence that the little girl died from any cause other than an accident, much less that Casey Anthony was involved in any way. That constitutes a lot more than reasonable doubt, therefore the jury got it right.

If the jury got it right, based on the rule of law, then to continue to condemn Casey Anthony as a murderer who got away with it is both wrong and wholly unfair.