Journalist: Was Casey Anthony Too Pretty For Prosecution?

By Swani Swanigan , Christian Post Contributor

July 7, 2011|5:01 pm

The recent acquittal of Casey Anthony has angered many across the nation who question her innocence.

So how did the 25-year-old get the not guilty verdict?

Some reports have suggested that the defendant’s physical appearance played a major role in the jury’s decision. Patheos Journalist Karen Spears Zacharias said: “The reason this jury found Casey Anthony not guilty had nothing to do with evidence presented and everything to do with Casey Anthony being a pretty young thang.

“Had she been older, less attractive, had she come from the trailer park or the projects, or the wrong side of the tracks? Had she been fatherless? Had she of been a “he”. Had she of been chubby thigh, thin lipped or her eyes spaced too far apart. Had she of been unattractive in any visible way, Casey Anthony would have been found guilty.”

She added: “This jury was bewitched by all the wrong things, the same things that seduced the public.”

But is this true? Does attractiveness determine whether or not you are granted a “get out of jail free” card?

According to a hidden camera study by NBC, you are given more creditability and more attention when you’re “attractive looking”.

“A person’s physical attractiveness - the look that they’re basically born with, impacts every individual literally from birth to death. People are valued more who are higher in physical attractiveness,” said Dean of the College of Business Administration at Roosevelt University Dr. Gordon Patzer.

In a study by the University of Washington, studies show that even justice is not blind to beauty. In fact, research proves that jurors find arguments more persuasive if they’re made by attractive lawyers; so perhaps the same theory applies for highly attractive defendants accused of murder.