ExpectingUnicorns
. . . only the pure of heart can see.
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2008
- Messages
- 4,617
- Reaction score
- 3,229
I am such a putz that I over-simplify. I just cannot get it through my head why the prosecution can't insist that Casey be put on the stand. She, by all indications, was the last known person with Caylee. I just googled "Casey Anthony 'I took Caylee'" ~ and I got 43,800 hits. They were all lies ~ they all ended with "to Sawgrass Apartments." But the prosecution can clearly disprove that. Casey even admitted later it was a lie. So why, oh why can't they put her on the stand to answer to that? Self incrimination? So what's so wrong with that if it's the truth? I can't understand why being defenseless because your truth is incriminating should equate to being not guilty. The truth and finding the truth seems like it should be the first order of the court but it seems like our legal system ties its own hands bending over backwards to try to protect personal rights. Why isn't truth seeking in criminal offenses held a higher priority than individual rights when we know that these two objectives are in opposition. We, as a people, act for the rights of the people in so many other instances (How many items of clothing did you have to remove before your last flight?). And yet it's one on one in murder cases like this where it feels like to me that the rights of the defendant are held in higher esteem than the rights of the victim.
Why, why must Casey be allowed to stand mute when the public and Caylee cry for answers?
Why, why must Casey be allowed to stand mute when the public and Caylee cry for answers?