"Tuesday Afternoon": The Day That Logic Failed

I'm looking at myself reflections of my mind,
It's just the kind of day to leave myself behind.
So gently swaying through the fairyland of love,
If you'll just come with me you'll see the beauty of
Tuesday afternoon, Tuesday afternoon.

[from "Tuesday Afternoon," Moody Blues, 1968]

Tuesday afternoon, July 5, 2011, 2:15. The only question in most people's minds was: "Would she get the death penalty or life imprisonment?"

To the charge of first-degree murder? Not guilty.

To the charge of aggravated manslaughter? Not guilty.

To the charge of aggravated child abuse? Not guilty.

How could this happen? This article seeks to explain it all (with a sigh). Most Orlando residents were stunned by the jury's verdict in the Casey Anthony trial. The next day, radio commentator Rush Limbaugh suggested printing bumper stickers with the message:

IF YOU CAN'T DO THE TIME,
THEN DO THE CRIME
IN FLORIDA.

Probably that has reference to Jessica's law, which began in Florida back in 2005, as well as Caylee's Law, which will help juries who are somewhat dense. Comedian Dennis Miller said it best on The O'Reilly Factor (July 6th). When asked for his opinion of the trial, Miller gave the following assessment: "Well, I think the system held up in one regard. You're guaranteed a jury of your peers. She's a moron, and they found twelve other morons to form a moron's Baker's Dozen down there."

Miller is right. As our sign out front said last week, "People are not rewarded for having brains—but for using them." A failure to think and reason correctly from the evidence brought about this verdict.

Only instead of swaying through a fairyland of love, we are reeling from a macabre vision of injustice, from which there will be no relief.

One of the definitions of moron is "remarkably stupid." A rehearsal of the facts will explain why this assessment of the jury is accurate. The following events are enumerated in the Orlando Sentinel on July 6th 2011. When Cindy Anthony (Casey's mother) had not seen Caylee in 30 days (June 15th, 2008), she called 911 (July 15). Why not sooner? Casey had been lying to her parents and everyone else about Caylee's whereabouts. She was telling her boyfriend that her daughter was with a nanny or her parents (neither of which was true, and she knew it). The following occurred on July 16th.

Casey Anthony tells detectives a string of lies. Investigators learn Anthony was not employed where she said she was, and the apartment where she dropped off Caylee had been vacant for 142 days.

4:33 p.m.: Casey is arrested on charges of child neglect, filing false official statements and obstructing a criminal investigation.

11:16 p.m.: An angry Casey Anthony makes her first call from the Orange County Jail. She curses at her relatives and tells a friend the call was a "waste." She asks repeatedly for her boyfriend's phone number.

On August 5, 2008, Casey was formally charged with child neglect—a charge that the jury eventually decided that she was not guilty of. How can twelve people listen to the evidence of the child being missing and her mother telling lies about an imaginary nanny who was taking care of her and not conclude that, at the very least, she was guilty as charged. There is no excuse for being this slack in trying to administer justice! None!

On July 17, 2008, a "cadaver dog alerts to the odor of human decomposition in the trunk of the car Casey Anthony drove" (A8). On August 27th, 2008, a "Sheriff's Office official said air sample tests from Casey Anthony's vehicle show the trunk once held a decomposing human body." On December 19, 2008, Caylee's remains are found just a few blocks from the Anthony's house. Duct tape is found from her head area.

On January 25, 2010, Casey pleaded guilty to 13 check-fraud charges (remember, she had not been working, as she misinformed people), "one count of grand theft, four counts of check forgery, and fraudulent use of personal identification" (A9).

As her boyfriend and others would testify, Casey was out drinking at a nightclub nearly every night during the month that Caylee was "missing." On October 9, 2010, pictures of the new tattoo she obtained during that same time period were released. The tattoo says, "Bella Vita" (Italian for "Beautiful Life"). On May 24th, 2011, the trial began.

How Could This Case Be Lost?

The prosecutors must have thought the case would be a slam dunk when the defense attorney admitted in his opening argument that his client was a habitual liar (which is true). No one marveled that Casey Anthony was never called to the witness stand. But the defense attorney did an astonishing thing. He claimed that Caylee had drowned in the family pool by accident (and he knows that how?) and that Casey's father, George, knew it and helped move the body. Casey went along with it because of the hold he had on her. He had sexually abused her while she was growing up. Everyone on this jury should have been responding to this claim in two ways. What is the proof of accidental death? What is the proof of sexual molestation? Casey's own defense attorney had already denounced her as a liar! Yet who else could testify of this allegation? The jury should have said: "If he offers no proof of these theories, he has no defense." He never offered one iota of proof for any of these charges, and the jury should have been incensed at him!

So what was the jury thinking, assuming that they at least tried to think (although evidence is slight). One said, "Well, it might have been an accident." If such were the case, then why did they not convict her on one of the lesser charges? But how valid is such a thought? Is there any evidence for it? No. Suppose Caylee's death was an accident: What mother would dump her precious child's body in a swamp and go nightclubbing? Hello! Justice is on the phone, but apparently the jury is out (of their minds).

Even if Casey was afraid she would be charged with murder for an accidental death, when she was charged with murder, why did she not tell the truth? She had nearly three years to confess and give the details of the accident to plea bargain, but she did not. Do not these facts refute the accident theory?

However, we know that Caylee's death was not an accident for one simple reason—no one needs to put duct tape around the head of someone who accidently died! We would all like to hear a reasonable explanation for that. If Caylee had drowned in the family's pool (as per the defense's theory)—and Casey and her father resisted the temptation to call 911 to try to revive her, which always happens in a drowning, then why was it necessary to put duct tape around her head? No one has a rational explanation for that scenario.

Excuses

Some say that the prosecution failed to make a convincing case. Many legal experts said it was one of the most powerfully-presented cases of that type they had ever seen. After hearing the decision debated for three days, the audience of The O'Reilly Factor voted online as to whether Casey was innocent or guilty. Nearly 100,000 people voted, and 90% of them voted, "Guilty!" It is too bad that none of them were on the jury.

Some have pointed out that the case lacked sufficient forensic evidence. No cause of death could be determined—due to the fact that the body lay in a Florida swamp during the hottest part of the year and was badly decomposed. No murder weapon could be produced. Even the time of Caylee's death could not be established. And there was no eyewitness testimony. However, none of these missing pieces is significant.

Are we so used to watching the CSI shows on television that we believe that some brilliant piece of evidence should save the day and make our thinking easy for us? The fact is that the child is dead! The fact is that her mother told several lies in an effort to cover it up. Are we going to penalize Caylee because her mother did not make a home video of it? Do any of the jurors realize that DNA and many of the marvelous tools available to the police have only existed for about the last two decades? However did juries reach convictions before those days? They used their brains. It is not that hard to reason. Sherlock Holmes, although a fictional character, did it all the time.

Was there another presence in this situation that might have had a bearing on what happened? Did someone have a grudge against the deceased? Did a boyfriend suggest doing this and Casey went along with it? No, she is the only one who is a principle player in this sick drama. Narcissistic people do not cover up for others. Only one person knows when and how Caylee died. Only one person lied to hide the fact of her death and covered it up for a month. An accident would not have required duct tape: Murder One!

The jury managed to find Casey Anthony guilty on four counts of lying, which was pretty much indisputable. Did they ever ask themselves why she lied? Although a person might have many motives for lying, usually fear of being caught doing something wrong is the most prominent reason for a lack of truthfulness. That fact alone should have been meaningful.

Many are speculating about what Casey will do when she is released today. Nothing much would surprise or interest this writer—although helping abused children would be nice. Thanks to twelve people who could not reason themselves out of a paper bag, she will be free to do what O.J. Simpson spent his life doing after acquittal—looking for the real killer.

Relevance

Someone may wonder, "Why write a description of this case?" Much more could be said if it were just about the trial. It could be pointed out that the judge did an excellent job in keeping the trial on track; he was patient with all of the defense attorney's antics—even when he tried every tactic he could think of to delay the proceedings. His desperation was obvious—except to the jury. After the verdict was read, the defense attorney had the temerity to say that he could go home and tell his daughter that he saved a life that day. This pompous individual gave himself far too much credit. Neither he nor his defense was the least bit compelling. Only the jury can be given credit for Casey's new lease on life. But why is it important to give this case attention?

First, Christians are always interested in justice. God told Israel that He would not accept their feast days or their offerings, or their songs. "But let justice run down like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream" (Amos 5:24). We should all have an interest that justice is done, and in recent years it has been alarming to see how many people have gotten away with murder. Mary Winkler shot her husband in the back, a fact which could not be denied. Then her husband was the one put on trial. Since he was no longer alive to defend himself, she was convicted of voluntary manslaughter and given a whopping seven months in custody. Two of those months were in a mental health facility—the place where the jury should have gone.

Second, there are frequent parallels with what is happening in religion and what occurs in the world. In this instance, just as people do not want to be bothered to think and reason from the facts of a case, so it is that many do not want to be bothered to reason from the Scriptures. If people are not reasoning as God once invited Israel to do (Isa. 1:18), then how are they making decisions?

Many choose to be what they are religiously by birth. To illustrate the fallacy of this argument one need only call attention to the fact that millions are born Muslim. The religion into which one is born is irrelevant; the question must always be, "What is the truth?" Saul of Tarsus was born into the Jewish religion, but he changed—with some special prodding from Jesus. To say, "I was born a _, and I'll die a _" requires no thought or reasoning ability. God gave us the physical evidence of the universe so that we would correctly conclude that He is (and we are without excuse for failing to do so) (Rom. 1:18-20); He also gave us the Bible (His written revelation) to study.

Yet how many people have failed to see that Jesus only established one church and that His followers referred to themselves as Christians? It is not difficult to notice that no denominational names existed or were used in the New Testament. Why have people not realized that religious sects are wrong (1 Cor. 1:10-13)? How difficult is it to notice that in the New Testament one cannot read about Lutherans, Methodists, Jehovah's Witnesses, or Mormons? How can they not see that we need to go back to the teachings of the New Testament and forget about creeds written by men and councils that decide things contrary to the Scriptures?

Second, people do not read the Scriptures for themselves to find out what they actually say with respect to salvation—the most important topic in the Bible. Once man sinned and was in need of redemption, no other concern could be greater for each one of us. Yes, we need to know how to worship correctly, and we ought to be excited by the Lord's second coming, but those can only be of interest after we are saved.

What are we going to do? Shall we take a tract's word for it that all we must do is believe? Shall we listen to a friend who says, "I just prayed for Jesus to come into my heart"? Shall we go by the popular philosophy that "I just feel it"? Or should we go by what God revealed to us? Those who take the simple way out are no better than juries who ignore and fail to reason from the evidence.

What does the Bible teach with respect to salvation? Although some references do exist concerning the way one's sins are forgiven in the epistles, a person really needs to study the books of Acts, where we see the gospel preached and the way in which people responded. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all end with the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. The book of Acts records what happened next, beginning with the ascension of Jesus into heaven (Acts 1:9-11). Then comes the Day of Pentecost and Peter's sermon, which was addressed to some of the very ones who had crucified Him.

Peter proved that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, by giving the Jews the evidence for it from Scripture. He showed that it was prophesied that Jesus would be raised from the dead. The apostles were all witnesses that the resurrection had occurred just as it was foretold. The men wanted to know what they should do (Acts 2:37). The reader must reason from the facts he is given. Peter did not say that to be saved they should just believe. He did not say they should pray "the sinner's prayer," which was devised by men many centuries later—not God. One must ask himself why people today are so loathe to teach what Peter told the multitude. He said: "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38).

Why do so many omit repentance and baptism today as the means of salvation? Does it matter? The fact is that God included it. How difficult is it for the reader then to draw the same conclusion that those listening to Peter did? "Then those who gladly received his word were baptized…" (Acts 2:41). The reader must also notice that baptism in the New Testament is always by immersion (John 3:23; Acts 8:35-39). Uninspired men changed it to sprinkling and pouring in the second and third centuries. If we learn to reason correctly with God's revelation, chances are we will do well in all other areas of life, also.