Former L.A. prosecutor Marcia Clark, famous for her work in the O.J. Simpson trial, has come forward with her opinion on the recently decided Casey Anthony trial. The two murder trials had their similarities and their differences, but both astonishingly concluded with a not guilty verdict for the defendant.
Ms. Clark believes that the major difference between the two cases was that Simpson was a celebrity, and the media circus was worse. There were racial tie-ins, given the unfortunate use of the word “nigger” by L.A. Police Detective Mark Fuhrman, who was drawn and quartered by F. Lee Bailey, member of the defense’s “dream team.” Anthony’s case had no extraneous or frivolous issues like Fuhrman or Colombian necklaces.
The former prosecutor believes that jurors confuse “reasonable doubt” with “reason to doubt”, which leads to situations such as this jury found itself in. Plenty of reasons to doubt were given, but should there have been any reasonable doubt in jurors’ minds given that Ms. Anthony lied about her daughter’s disappearance when she was really dead, she partied hearty in the wake of the known death of her daughter, and she kept juggling the balls of mendacity for 31 days before she could finally lie no more.
… although I must accept their verdict, I don’t have to agree with it. Because I did follow this case, and I have to be honest: If I’d been in that jury room, the vote would’ve been 11 to 1. Forever.
Like Clark, I have to accept the jury’s decision, but I don’t have to agree with it (and you know I don’t).
Read Ms. Clark’s thoughts here.
