Casey Anthony: Justice Denied for Little Caylee Marie?

Little Caylee Anthony with her mother Casey, who many believe killed her

Little Caylee Anthony was first brought to the attention of law enforcement, the residents of Florida and the whole of the United States on July 15th, 2008. Her maternal grandmother, Cindi Anthony, had made a frantic 911 call insisting she hadn't seen her granddaughter in 31 days and that her daughter Casey's car smelled 'odd', like she had had a dead body in there. Cindi Anthony explained that Casey had given her and Caylee's grandfather a variety of excuses to account for their granddaughter's absence over the previous four weeks. However, things had come to a head that day, when Casey had told her mother she hadn't seen Caylee in weeks either. This started a series of lies Casey Anthony would tell, with the most consistent being she had left Caylee with a nanny, appropriately called "Zanny". According to Casey Anthony, when she returned to Zanny's apartment to pick her daughter up nobody was there. According to Casey, she had been too scared she would be in trouble with the police and her family for leaving her daughter with someone she didn't know very well and so she had kept the disappearance to herself,, She went on to insist she had been trying to locate 'Zanny' herself. Police soon found out that Casey Anthony hadn't mentioned her daughter's alleged kidnapping to anyone, not even the man she was having a relationship with at the time. Soon after, a woman, whom Casey Anthony insisted was the mystery nanny was taken in for questioning by the police. She was released when law enforcement were happy she had nothing to do with Caylee's disappearance. Police were also happy that the nanny called Zanny did not exist and Casey Anthony was arrested and charged with murder in October 2008. She pleaded not guilty. 

On December 11th, 2008, a trash bag containing a Winnie the Pooh blanket and the skeletal remains of little Caylee was found in a wooded area not far from the Anthony family home. The Medical Examiner said, due to the state of the remains, he had no choice but to register the death as a 'death by unknown means'. However, he said that three pieces of duck tape found on or around the skull gave him cause to believe Caylee's death was actually a homicide. 

Casey Anthony's trial began on May 24th, 2011. The prosecution told the jury Casey Anthony murdered little Caylee using a mixture of chloroform and duck tape to free herself of the burden of parental responsibility. Prosecutors also sought the death penalty. The first shock of the trial was when the defence, led by Casey's attorney Jose Baez, countered with a story that little Caylee had accidentally drowned in the pool at the family home and that her grandfather and Casey's father, George Anthony, had disposed of the body.  

Casey Anthony's entire defence revolved around her alleged dysfunctional upbringing and the sexual abuse she had allegedly endured at the hands of her father. The defence team did not produce any evidence of the alleged abuse, nor did they have any evidence to support how they said Caylee really died. The prosecution on the other hand appeared to have plenty of evidence supporting their opinion that Casey Anthony was guilty of premeditated murder. A forensic researcher told the jury how he had found compounds associated with decomposition in samples taken from the carpet, spare tyre cover, wheel well and air in Casey Anthony's car. A hair found in the car was also proven to have come from a dead body. Mitochondrial testing proved the hair had come from Casey Anthony's maternal line, as Casey, Cindy and Cindy's mother were allegedly ruled out - that only left Caylee as the most likely owner. The prosecution also submitted records of several Google searches that had been taken off the Anthony family's home computer, the searches included 'how to make chloroform' and 'neck breaking'. According to the computer investigations expert, the word 'chloroform' had been searched 84 times. However, it emerged that the expert made a mistake and had misread the data produced by certain software he had used. It transpired that the word chloroform had only been searched for once. Still determined, the prosecution revealed that the Winnie the Pooh blanket was part of a set from the Anthony home. Altogether 400 pieces of evidence were entered in the trial. 

The trial lasted six weeks and on July 5th, 2011, the jury returned their verdict. Much to the shock of the prosecution, law enforcement and virtually everyone all over America and the World, Casey Anthony was found not guilty of murder. She was also find not guilty of aggravated manslaughter and aggravated child abuse. She was found guilty of four counts of providing false information to the police for - lying about dropping Caylee of with Zanny at her apartment, lying about working for Universal Studios during 2008, lying about informing two other people that Caylee had disappeared and for falsely saying she had talked to Caylee on July 15th 2008, which had led to police expanding the search area and increasing manpower. Although the defence wanted all four counts to be counted as one, so as the sentence would run as one, the judge refused and instead acknowledged that the July to December 2008 search for little Caylee had cost a significant amount in police time, resources and costs. Casey Anthony was fined $1000 for each count and sentenced to one year in prison. However, she was credited with 1043 days for time served and she walked free on July 17th 2011. 

Today, almost seven years after little Caylee Marie Anthony died, Casey Anthony allegedly lives the life of a virtual recluse. An apparent 'victim' of her own notoriety, only the odd picture and interview has surfaced in the press since her trial ended. While some people will show her some sympathy, many more believe the real victim, Caylee Anthony, was denied justice and that her mother literally got away with murder. 

I have to say the Caylee Anthony case frustrates me. The prosecution dropped the ball more than once. The defence were able to counter the prosecution's claims about the chloroform found on the carpet of Casey Anthony's car because the prosecution's expert used a technique never before used in a homicide investigation. Add to that the Google searches mistake and the fact that the hair found in the car, that was said to have come from a dead body, was not 100% reliable, and it is no wonder the jury could not convict beyond a reasonable doubt. Considering the mountain of evidence, it almost feels like the prosecution jumped the gun and they ended up paying for it, or Caylee Anthony did. Her story just did not make sense. What sort of mother waits 31 days to tell police and her family that her 2-year old daughter is missing? I tell you what sort, a guilty one! A mother whose child has a fatal accident calls for help! A mother who has something to hide, comes up with one ridiculous excuse after another in order to cover up what really happened. 

What are your thoughts on the Casey Anthony case? Was she really just a compulsive liar who lost her young daughter to a tragic accident? Or was she really guilty of premeditated murder, driven by a need to have no responsibility in her life? 

Casey Anthony Today

Ryan Holle - Life in Prison for Lending his Car to a Friend!

Ryan Holle

On March 10th 2003, Ryan Holle loaned his car to his room mate and friend, William Allen, Jr. Allen then used the vehicle to pick up three men and drove them to the address of a known drug dealer. Where the group planned to steal drugs. Once they had broken in, the men emptied a safe of around $400 and a pound of marijuana. Unfortunately, they were interrupted by the home owner's teenage daughter and, in an effort to silence her, used a rifle from the house to bludgeon her to death. The killer, Charles Miller, Jr and the other men were soon arrested, a then twenty-year old Ryan Holle was also arrested alongside them. Because Florida adopt the Felony Murder Rule, Holle was deemed an accomplice for the loaning of his car and was therefore seen just as culpable for the young girl's death. Facing a first-degree murder charge, Ryan Holle was offered a plea deal, a ten year sentence in return for his testimony on the other men. Adamant that he was innocent of the charge, Holle refused the deal and his case went to trial. 

 When Holle's trial began in 2004,  the prosecutor started by hinting that during initial police questioning Holle gave the impression he knew exactly what the men planned to do that night. The prosecutor also went as far as saying that Holle was actually the mastermind behind the whole robbery and that he had been more than aware that 'knocking someone out' was a probability. He went on to state that Ryan Holle should be found guilty of first-degree murder because 'No Car, No Crime'.  Holle testified to the contrary, saying William Allen Jr had asked him to lend his car to go get food. Ryan Holle explained that he and others had enjoyed a long night of partying and he had no qualms in lending Allen the car, as it was something he had done in the past. He insisted that he had known nothing of the robbery until after the act and even then he had thought the men were joking around. Holle's version of events was also backed up by Allen, Jr himself. The entire trial, including prosecution/defence/witness testimony, jury deliberations, verdict and sentencing, lasted just one day. Ryan Holle was found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to life without parole. Despite prosecutors at first seeking the death penalty, Charles Miller Jr also received life without parole, as did the other three men involved. 

I have to admit Ryan Holle's conviction and sentence do not sit well with me at all. If accountability for a murder is being pushed back to the owner of the vehicle used, then isn't the home owner who had drugs in her house just as accountable? She created an unsafe environment for her family by knowingly having (and allegedly selling) marijuana under her roof. Instead, the home owner, and victim's mother, was sentenced to just three years in prison for possession. Why did the prosecution believe Ryan Holle was aware of the potential consequences when he lent his car to William Allen, Jr and the person who had drugs in their home wasn't? After all, following the prosecutor's twisted logic, shouldn't it be "No Marijuana, No Crime"?. In my eyes, Ryan Holle has been convicted of what he may have allegedly been thinking. 

I feel it is also important to note that Ryan Holle did not have a prior criminal record, unlike the other four men who were convicted. So how did the prosecution come to the conclusion that someone who has never been convicted of a criminal act in the past could be the mastermind behind a robbery? Especially when the others involved had all spent time in jail at some point. How did any jury find the alleged evidence against Holle enough to find him guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt? Of course, the prosecution are quick to point out that, on the evidence presented, twelve unbiased jury members found Ryan Holle guilty. However, when I consider that both Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson were found not guilty of murder by twelve unbiased jury members, this point bears no weight with me. Ryan Holle may have exercised poor judgement and naivety, but neither of these are against the law. 

In December 2014, four cabinet members decided to 'take advisment' in Ryan Holle's clemency hearing. This means, he is still waiting for a decision. If the clemency hearing is dismissed and any further appeals fail, Ryan Holle will die in prison for a crime that was committed while he was asleep in bed two miles away. Where is the justice in that? 

What do you think about the Ryan Holle case? Do you think the conviction and sentence were deserved or, like me, do you think he shouldn't have been convicted at all?

Ryan Holle continues to protest he knew
nothing about the robbery.

If you believe Ryan Holle should be granted clemancy, you can sign his Change.org petition at the following link - https://www.change.org/p/florida-commission-on-offender-review-governor-rick-scott-grant-clemency-for-ryan-holle-who-was-sentenced-to-life-for-loaning-his-car

To keep up-to-date with the Holle case, check out the Facebook page - https://www.facebook.com/justiceforryanholle

Juvenile Life Without Parole - Right or Wrong?

Lewis was convicted of Felony murder at 14-years old
he will serve time in Juvenile Detention before being
officially sentenced at age 21 where life without
parole is a very real possibility.

According to the Amnesty International website, there are around 2500 people serving life without parole sentences in the U.S for crimes committed when they were under 18. Furthermore, although other countries, such as Antigua, Cuba and Nigeria, also permit life without parole for juveniles the United States is the only country actively practising it. Despite a U.S Supreme Ruling in 2012 demanding ALL states abolish mandatory life sentences without parole for juveniles, only 13 out of 28 states have complied. According to Amnesty International, these states are actively breaking international law and certain standards that are generally accepted worldwide. 

In California, around 237 juveniles are serving life without parole sentences, with some of these being as young as 14 when sentenced. Perhaps more striking is the fact that over half of these juveniles did not commit the actual criminal act themselves. Instead, they either assisted during the commission of the crime or provided support to the actual individual(s). 

In Florida, several individuals who were sentenced to life without parole as juveniles are bringing law suits before the Supreme court in a hope of getting their sentences commuted to a lesser term. One of the plaintiffs is Shimeek Gridine, in 2009 a 14-year old Gridine and his 12-year old friend made a bungled attempted to rob a man in Jacksonville, Florida. The victim, somewhat stunned by the robbery attempt ran away from the boys, when Gridine fired a shotgun. The bullet grazed past the man's shoulder and head but thankfully he wasn't seriously injured. Despite hoping for a lenient sentence as a young offender with no past criminal history, he was jailed for 70 years with no chance of parole. In a Supreme Court ruling in 2005, the death penalty for juveniles under the age of 18 was abolished as 'cruel and unusual punishment'. It is this ruling that is being used in many of the Florida lawsuits, Shimeek Gridine's included, on the basis that sentences of 70 years plus violate this ruling. 

So what is your opinion? Do you believe if you are big enough to commit the crime, you are big enough to do the time? Or does sentencing juveniles to life without parole not take into account that these individuals are still maturing, physically, emotionally and mentally? Should a 'child' of 14 be held just as culpable if they commit the same crime as a 30-year old? Or is 14, 15 years of age just too young to assume they cannot be rehabilitated and reintegrated into society?

Shimeek Gridine sentenced to 70 years
without parole at 14-years old.