I was geared up to write a blog about the Casey Anthony trial, but in my researching of the story I ran in to an eloquently written blog on the disconnect between the public's feelings of Casey Anthony's guilt and the actual legal outcome. If you have been living under a rock, Casey Anthony was accused of murdering her young daughter. The appearance of the case made her look quite guilty - she didn't report her child missing for a month, she changed her story numerous times, her friends claimed that she gave the child Xanax to "calm her down", and there are pictures of her participating in a bar's dance contest during the time her daughter is believed to be missing.
From the public's point of view Casey Anthony seems incredibly guilty. From a legal standpoint, though, there was almost no material evidence. When found, her daughter's body was too decomposed to determine a cause of death. There was no murder weapon. The DNA evidence was not convincing. The jury made a rational decision based on the evidence. In this blog on Huffingtonpost.com, Princeton neuroscience professor Michael Graziano explains how the public and jury can come to such diametrically opposed decisions on Casey Anthony's guilt based on what we know about how the brain makes decisions. Read the article here!
~Eric~
From the public's point of view Casey Anthony seems incredibly guilty. From a legal standpoint, though, there was almost no material evidence. When found, her daughter's body was too decomposed to determine a cause of death. There was no murder weapon. The DNA evidence was not convincing. The jury made a rational decision based on the evidence. In this blog on Huffingtonpost.com, Princeton neuroscience professor Michael Graziano explains how the public and jury can come to such diametrically opposed decisions on Casey Anthony's guilt based on what we know about how the brain makes decisions. Read the article here!
~Eric~
