Aphrodite Jones, you were also there today.
Were you as shocked as everyone else? My jaw dropped, Piers, and something else.
Everybody was not only stunned. Yes Casey was grabbing on to her attorney’s hand, she
was holding on for dear life. But she looked surprised, frankly. Because prior to the verdict
she came in all puffy faced. She clearly had been briefed. She had been prepared for a
guilty verdict and she would have been crying and that was clear. She was seemingly surprised herself and as
the verdicts continue to come in not guilty, not guilty, on any count to do with murdering
her child. Suddenly, you saw, a new Caylee, a new Casey, rather.
Somebody who was, at the end of it, started to smile — and — you know, — she
still has a dead baby there and we have a lot of questions. There’s still a lot of explaining
to do. And to say that they found her innocent Piers,
I beg to differ. They found her not guilty. That doesn’t mean they thought she was innocent.
They just felt that the State did not have enough evidence to prove beyond their reasonable
doubt that she did it. Alan Dershowitz, let me bring you in here.
I mean from a legal point of view, were you surprised at the verdict? You’re always surprised at verdicts in cases
like this. There are hundreds of people in prison some on death row today based on less
evidence than this. This was a sufficient case to go the jury and a sufficient case
for a jury to have gone either way. It all depends on whether you trust the jury
system. We have to remember that jury trials in homicide
cases are not ‘who done it’s. It’s not about justice for Caylee. The prosecutor said, “This case is about seeking
justice for Caylee.” No it’s not. It’s not even about finding “the truth.” It’s about figuring out whether or not the
admissible evidence proves the charges in this case beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury, very reasonably, had a doubt. They didn’t know when she died. They didn’t know the cause of death. The government’s theory was very speculative. The defense theory was even more speculative. By the way, I don’t think the defense attorney
did such a great job here — getting up in front of the jury and saying he was going
to prove that she was abused. Why would you argue that the defendant was
abused if she didn’t do it? The abuse excuse is generally something that
you introduce to mitigate guilt. So he got better as it went along. But the prosecution overcharged the case.
It never should have been a capital case. It never should have been a first degree murder
case. They overtried the case. They introduced absurd evidence from an expert
that he could smell death. By the way, this case, even if there had been
a conviction, probably would have been reversed on appeal based on the junk science. So this is really a case if you trust the jury system, if you believe that better 10 guilty go free than one innocent be wrongly confined, if you really believe in proof beyond a reasonable doubt,
this is the right verdict. If you think the object of a criminal trial is who done it,
to do justice for the victim then this produced the wrong result. Cathy Rice, junk science. Would you go along with that? Well I think it’s fringe science. I think
it’s science that hasn’t really been validated or tested adequately enough to prove that
it’s reliable enough to present in court — some of it. Some of it. Yeah. And I do disagree strongly with the rebuttal
statement of the forensic anthropologist that you don’t open a skull at autopsy. I always open a skull. If you want to see what’s inside there, you’re
not going to try to peek …. [end of video.]