I paid fleeting attention to the Casey Anthony trial. The young mother accused of killing her two year old daughter. My guess is that she was guilty, but it was a “dry bones” case which had the prosecution working with purely circumstantial evidence and those can be hard.
But when the not guilty verdict came down it got me to thinking — was the death penalty the real issue here? Would that jury have been more willing to find her guilty if they weren’t faced with putting a needle in her arm?
Or is the problem that the American public just becoming too dumb to follow complex issues? Or understand that DNA evidence is better than a fingerprint, or what the word perspicacious means? (Apparently ABC felt it was necessary to add a subtitled definition of the world when Christine Amanpour used it on her Sunday morning show. *sigh*
