None of that is proof that a murder occurred. We don't know the how, when, or where of the child's death.
That is basically it for me. I personally think she did it. But, I do not think what we know demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that it was her.
"God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference." Unless I'm prepared to load up a gun, track this broad down, and shoot her (which I'm not), hypothesizing over her guilt is pointless masturbation.
I think she did it. But the prosecution didn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. "I think she did it" is akin to saying "she probably did it." Which is what America thinks about it thanks to 24 hour news babble - probably. Probably, in a court, means more likely than not, or just a little more that 50% chance. Neither definition is beyond a reasonable doubt.
A tangent: You want to know what gives Detectives ulcers? When a Medical Examiner marks "Cardiac Arrest" on the death certificate. Barring a massive, world ending heart attack, that's legalese for "I have no clue." Well, yeah, the victim's heart stopped and he died. What caused the victim's heart to stop, Doc? Was it a massive gunshot wound that caused the victim to bleed out, thus stopping the heart?
Well maybe she'll pull an OJ and we can get her down the line later on? Anyone know how her taxes look?
It is not possible to answer this question, since I have not seen the accumulated evidence first hand... except for what has been presented by the media. I hear she told the police all sorts of crazy stories? But I haven't watched any video tapes of these incidents or listened to any audio tapes from these encounters. I have not heard the cases presented by defense and prosecution. To be honest, I had never even heard of Casey Anthony until about a week ago when the media blitz became too hard to ignore. Kids die everyday for all sorts of reasons. Many of these cases involve crazy parents. I think I read about a similar story at least once a month. Some guy kills his whole family and then himself. A mom drives her kids into the river and drowns them. A kid is beaten to death by the boyfriend of his mom. Girl is kidnapped from home, parents are the prime suspects. On and on it goes... I was initially confused as to why this particular case was getting so much attention.
^ Go beyond the evidence in the case in making your determination of guilt or innocence. You've stated you feel/think she's guilty and nothing could make you change your mind and your vote. That means even if the evidence isn't sufficient to convict you would hold out anyway.
Bullshit. I think she's guilty only after weighing the evidence, which is a matter of public record. I haven't made any points about this case that weren't already in evidence, and nor does my opinion hinge on any information that isn't already in evidence. And the truth is that a jury knows less than everyone else -- not more -- which is why venues get changed, why juries get sequestered, and why jurors are screened so closely. They're supposed to go into deliberation knowing only what's in evidence. The only thing a jury knows that the rest of us do not know is what was discussed in deliberation. All the objections I've seen revolve around circumstantial evidence. Well, sometimes that's all we have. No instructions were given to ignore circumstantial evidence. I wouldn't change my vote because nothing was introduced to change anyone's opinion of guilt. Best we can tell, most of the jurors think she did it. The only objection that's been raised is that many people have reservations about convicting on circumstantial evidence. When eight or nine people believe she's guilty but are unable to convict on the basis of evidence, then you hold out for better evidence. And a hung jury gets the case re-tried. If I think the woman is guilty, that doesn't mean I can't be convinced she's innocent. What it means is that I won't vote to acquit unless my mind is changed with actual contradicting facts. A collective hesitance to rely on a virtual mountain of circumstantial evidence is not automatically "reasonable doubt." And it's certainly not contradiction.
^ No, the objection has not been convicting on circumstantial evidence. The objection to conviction has been based on the fact that are several vital pieces of evidence that are not present. You want to ignore that. How do you convict someone for murder when there is no physical evidence that they were murdered at all and you don't even know when or how they died? Proving someone was actually murdered is a vital component of a murder case. A dead body by itself does not prove it. Nor does bizarre behavior by all of the surviving family members.
I'm not ignoring anything. I'm disputing the "vitality" of the "missing" evidence, in light of the incriminating nature of what evidence we do have. Duct tape over a dead baby's mouth isn't physical evidence of foul play? I'm sorry -- did the defense offer alternative, innocent-sounding, reasonable explanations for that??? I didn't think so. The acid test of "proof" is if unbiased, unprejudiced jurors are convinced. These jurors talk about being sick at the thought of letting Casey go. Why? Becase they know she's guilty. Case proven. Whatever they allowed in after that was a mistake. Reasonable people imagining a doubt they didn't actually feel is not "reasonable doubt." It's imaginary doubt. These jurors, with no knowledge of the case except for the evidence, were convinced she did it. Not enough doubt for them to disbelieve guilt. No such conflict should exist. "Reasonable doubt" is not "beyond the shadow of a doubt."
Yep. The duct tape could have been easily put there after the child died when she was put in the swamp. Duct tape, BTW, with a "logo" on it that was a very unusual brand that was also seen at the "command center" and brought there by Casey's father who later lied about bringing it there. Add to that the evidence presented that there was no indication that the child suffocated to death, and I think you have pretty reasonable doubt that Casey put it there to murder her.
^^ to cpurick: Wrong. A baby can die and the duct tape be put on afterwards. Unless there is evidence the death was caused by suffocation it is not proof What the jury said was they felt and thought she was guilty but the evidence at trial was not sufficient to prove that. They were able to separate what they felt/thought from what the law required them to do. Ignore their feelings and rule on the evidence presented. Everyone else seems to get that. I guess we'll just have to disagree.
Where does this bullshit come from? A criminal trial is exactly about what feelings/thoughts the jury has after hearing the evidence. A jury is not told to disregard its emotions or its thoughts. The entire question is whether a jury, having heard nothing but evidence, feels/thinks the accused is guilty. You're saying they should ignore what they think -- if that was the case, why do we look so hard to find jurors who don't already have an opinion? The goal is to send into deliberation a jury that has no thoughts or feelings except those derived from the evidence -- of course we want the jury considering them. A jury is not supposed to critique the prosecution's case -- that's the defense's job. If they come out thinking, "Well, she did it, but..." then whatever comes after but is none of their business. The question before the jury is whether they think she did it -- not whether they think other people would think she did it. If we wanted to know what other people think, we'd have a different jury. "Would a reasonable person..." is a test for jurors to use on their own doubts, not some theoretical person who must also be convinced. The jury itself is already presumed to be reasonable. There is no doubt unless they're harboring it themselves. No instructions are given to the jury that there must be a means, motive or opportunity. The jury is not told that there must be an explanation of how the victim died, when or where, or that they can only convict if they can place the accused at the scene. You've been watching too much TV -- you're confusing the process law enforcement uses, to identify a perpetrator, with the standard a jury uses to convict. In other words, "means, motive and opportunity" are completely unrelated to "reasonable doubt." For the record, I'd like to see a hundred criminals go free before a single innocent person gets locked up. But this bitch was guilty. You get points for understanding how the system operates in practice. But you don't get any for defending the part that's broken.
The jury of course uses it's feelings, as far as how it feels about the evidence. This jury felt the evidence presented did not meet the burden of proof. They're then saying their gut instincts, personal feelings, beliefs based on non trial evidence is that she is guilty. They then correctly separated their personal beliefs from their obligations to use only actual evidence presented at trial. Again, I'm not seeing why you're having such a hard time with this. They felt the evidence was insufficient to meet the statutory burden of beyond a reasonable doubt. You're the only one who seems to have a hard time with this.
To put this simply, you believe that a dead body and the mother behaving bizarrely is sufficient evidence to convict for murder. The rest of us feel that the fact that no evidence there was a murder, no time and no method of death, a whole family that is so bizarre any of them could have been involved in whatever did happen and no strong motive was presented at trial is ground for reasonable doubt. We're just not going to agree.
Whoa, there. Check the poll results. The way I see it, eleven people think she did it, and three people don't. What we're discussing here is the six out of the eleven who would have acquitted despite being personally convinced. And that's not me versus "the rest of us." In fact, it's a pretty even split.
^ Fair enough. I was going by posters in this and the other thread rather than by poll results. The only I can say, being involved in EMS is that I've seen people do BIZARRE things in all sorts of situations that we would not consider normal or appropriate responses. I can't take bizarre behavior as an indication of guilt or innocence in a crime.
