This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Community Corner

Fanny Says: Standard of Reasonable Doubt Protects the Innocent

In a notorious 1920s case, actor "Fatty" Arbuckle was falsely accused of killing a woman.

Dear Fanny:

A terrible miscarriage of justice just occurred in a Florida courtroom.

A jury in Orlando acquitted Casey Anthony of murdering her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee, in 2008.

Find out what's happening in Doylestownwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

As far as I'm concerned, the prosecution presented a strong case that Anthony had the motive (a desire to be free of the burdens of raising a child) and the opportunity to kill her daughter and bury her body in the woods.

Furthermore, Anthony's failure to report her daughter's disappearance to authorities for a month was extremely suspicious.

Find out what's happening in Doylestownwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

By the time the girl's body was discovered six months later in the woods, it was so badly decomposed that the cause of death could not be definitively determined. However, there have been previous murder convictions where the victim's body was never even found.

Anthony's defense lawyers concocted a story that Caylee had drowned in the family's backyard swimming pool, and Anthony's father had covered it up by burying the girl's body. The father emphatically denied this allegation when he testified. Anthony did not take the stand.

This case brought back memories of the infamous O.J. Simpson trial of 1995. The former football star was acquitted of murdering his ex-wife and a young man after the jury bought the defense claim that Simpson had been "framed" by a racist police officer.

The victims' families brought a wrongful death suit against Simpson. Although the evidence was basically the same, this time Simpson was found liable for the two deaths and ordered to pay $33.5 million in damages (which he never did). Ironically, Simpson now is serving a prison term for his role in the 2007 robbery of two sports memorabilia dealers.

I realize prosecutors are required to prove defendants guilty, but requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt sometimes allows the guilty to literally get away with murder. What do you think?

Disgustedly,

Seeker of Justice

 

Dear Seeker:

I agree that defendants who commit crimes sometimes are acquitted despite strong evidence against them. However, requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt is necessary to protect the truly innocent.

Just because someone is charged with a crime doesn't mean they actually committed it.

One of the most sensational cases during my lifetime involved a man who was falsely accused of raping and killing a woman.

Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle was a popular star of silent film comedies. Despite weighing more than 250 pounds, he delighted audiences with his surprisingly graceful movements and humorous antics. In 1921, the 34-year-old Arbuckle signed a three-year contract with Paramount for $1 million, a phenomenal sum at the time.

To celebrate his good fortune, Arbuckle attended a party at a San Francisco hotel on Sept. 5, 1921. During the party, a 26-year-old starlet named Virginia Rappe became severely intoxicated. She died three days later of peritonitis.

One of the partygoers, Maude Delmont, also known as "Madame Black," claimed Arbuckle had violently raped Rappe and left her to die. Despite Delmont's notorious reputation as a criminal who blackmailed men with false accusations of sexual assault, and the lack of corroborating evidence, the district attorney charged Arbuckle with manslaughter.

Newspapers, led by yellow journalist William Randolph Hearst, loudly proclaimed Arbuckle's guilt and portrayed him as proof of Hollywood's degradation and immorality. Movie theaters across the country stopped showing his pictures.

Amid this poisonous publicity, Arbuckle's first trial in November-December 1921 ended in a hung jury. His second trial in January-February 1922 ended the same way. (Delmont's credibility was so dubious she never testified at any of the trials.)

At his third trial, in March-April 1922, the jury deliberated for only a few minutes before finding Arbuckle not guilty. In an extraordinary move, the jury issued a written apology to the defendant. It read, in part:

"Acquittal is not enough for Roscoe Arbuckle. We feel that a great injustice has been done him. We feel also that it was our only plain duty to give him this exoneration. There was not the slightest proof adduced to connect him in any way with the commission of a crime....We wish him success and hope that the American people will take the judgment of fourteen men and women who have sat listening for thirty-one days to the evidence that Roscoe Arbuckle is entirely innocent and free from all blame."

Despite this, the American public remained convinced that Arbuckle was guilty. His promising career in Hollywood was over, although he did later direct some movies under an assumed name. Arbuckle died in 1933 at age 46.

I'm not suggesting Casey Anthony also is a truly innocent defendant. I am saying that the law rightfully requires a high standard of proof in order to convict someone of a crime.

Yes, it can be infuriating when someone who appears guilty beats the rap, so to speak. Even 90 years later, the Arbuckle case reminds us how our judicial system (hopefully) protects the innocent. It's just too bad "Fatty" was not also exonerated in the court of public opinion.

Judiciously,

Fanny

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?