Response: Benjamin Chow’s “A Little Insight” (July 06, 2011)

Yesterday, one of my buddies, Benjamin Chow, wrote a blog post about the trial regarding the death of Caylee Anthony. The overall theme of his article was that Caylee Anthony’s mother, Casey Anthony, was in fact responsible for the death of her two-year-old daughter and should have been found guilty of the indictments of murder, manslaughter, and child abuse.

You can read his article for yourself on his website.

http://benjaminchow.wordpress.com/2011/07/06/july-6th-2011/.

If you remember the last time I analyzed one of Ben Chow’s blog posts, I went through everything he said section by section and pointed out flaws in his argument and why the opposite of what he said was true. Although I do not completely disagree with Ben about everything he said, I will still be doing the same thing with the parts I do believe are poorly constructed.

In his case summary, Benjamin states that Casey’s mother, Cindy Anthony, dialed 911 because she thought she smelled a dead body in the trunk of the car. Benjamin left out the important fact that, although it supposedly smelled like a decomposing body, it was merely an interpretation from a woman who happened to be deprived of seeing her granddaughter, and she had a clear predisposition to inter­preting a bad smell as a rotting body because she was concerned about the safety of her granddaughter. Sure, both Cindy and her husband testified that they both thought the smell was a rotting body, but we all know how powerful groupthink is.

There were five key chemical compounds present during decomposition found in the trunk of the vehicle after a forensic investigation by Dr. Arpad Alexander Vass of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, but it was not specified that the decomposition was that of a human. So what exactly was in the trunk? According to Anthony, it was just a dead squirrel.

Benjamin then criticizes Anthony for spending 31 days after her daughter went missing partying and getting a tattoo. Although that might be considered abnormal and bad behavior, just because she acts differently than a conventional mother would does not make her guilty of a crime. It is very possible that she was experiencing unconscious psychological trauma and was exhibiting defence mechanisms like denial (refusing to accept that something has happened – in the case of Anthony, pretending that everything is still fine) or thought suppression (pushing thoughts away in order to face reality – in the case of Anthony, the reality that she may no longer have a daughter but still has a life she has to live).

The fact that Anthony does not tell anybody that her daughter is missing may seem like something shocking, but if you look closely, it’s simply just a slightly more extreme form of something we all do. How many times have you made a mistake like forgetting something at work or making a miscalculation, and didn’t tell anyone because you didn’t want to experience the shame and thought you could take care of it yourself? Or, if you’re a student and don’t have a job, how many times have you gotten a bad grade on an exam but didn’t tell your parents or guardians because you didn’t want to get punished and thought you could make up for it by doing well on upcoming exams?

Further down in his argument, Benjamin states that the babysitter Zanny (who was supposedly looking after Caylee) never existed. This is false; Zanny is a real person named Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez, and the prosecution never stated that she never existed. Gonzalez was actually brought into court and she testified that she did not know the Anthony family. On a side note, Gonzalez will be filing a civil suit against Anthony for defamation that is scheduled to take place on August 29, 2011. Gonzalez claims that people suspect her of kidnapping everywhere she goes, and that she has been unable to find a job.

Next, Benjamin addresses the issue with the “startling” web searches of phrases such as “neck breaking,” “homemade weapons,” and “chloroform,” stating that this had a direct connection to the murder. If this was the case, then I must be pondering suicide, because I’ve been doing a lot of suicide-related searches lately. … Or, I was just writing a paper about suicide (that you can actually read in yesterday’s blog post) and my searches had nothing to do with what I’m feeling or planning to do. If this evidence was really considered a strong indicator that she did commit the murder, then I think it’s a better indicator that the accusers are running out of evidence to back up their claims.

Finally, Benjamin concludes his piece by stating that he is severely dissatisfied with the judicial system. I actually agree with this, and I think that the concept of juries should be abolished. Almost always, the members of the jury do not have any background information about the themes of the case and end up making a poor decision because they either misinterpreted the information, overweighed one insignificant component of the case, or did not fulfill their duties properly.

For example, if a court case has to do with something as a traffic violation, the bulk of the case will involve traffic laws. How much do you really know about traffic laws? Sure, you may have passed your exam and gotten your driver’s license, but that still doesn’t mean you know all the traffic rules. Did you know that in Glendale, California, there is a statute that explicitly states it is illegal to jump from a vehicle traveling at or above 65 miles per hour? Did you know that in Eureka, California, there is a statute that explicitly states it is illegal to use the road as a bed? The members of the jury simply don’t have enough specialty knowledge to make valid judgments on all cases.

As for overemphasizing insignificant details – did you know that eyewitness testimony is one of the most inaccurate pieces of evidence that can be presented at court, but it is the most influential? People’s memories are easily changeable. Every time you recall a memory, you rewrite it into your brain. The rewriting, however, is not always an exact copy. Each time you recall a memory, it is slightly altered with the thoughts and values you hold at the time of the recollection. By the time an eyewitness appears in court, important details of the memory could be long gone. Unfortunately, most jury members don’t know this, and an eyewitness confidently saying “I know he did it” is extremely convincing.

So here’s my unexpected twist. I think Casey Anthony’s jury did a relatively excellent job.

When interviewed, the jury members believed that Anthony should have been guilty, but they were unable to convict her as guilty because the evidence presented in court was not sufficient to prove that she was responsible for the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. This means, Anthony’s jury members set aside their personal beliefs and morals and followed the jury procedure carefully and properly.

So who’s at fault? I think the prosecuting team should take the responsibility for this failure. From what I see, I think they were too focused on convicting Anthony of murder and sentencing her to death, and depended too much on the humanity and sensitivity of the jury to get their work done. Fortunately, the jury made a decision from a completely neutral standpoint. The evidence may have been enough to convict Anthony of negligence, but the prosecution decided to overshoot their charges, and ended up paying the price.