So you can't get convicted with circumstantial evidence now? What do we need a video tape of her killing her child? Her defense was her dad and brother sexually assaulted her yet they never ever tried proving it in trial, and that she accidentally drowned and her dad who is a cop tried covering it up? Who covers up an accidental drowning? Jurors and others who think the prosecutors didn't do enough are lost.

Bingo. The entire defense was based upon her being sexually abused and turning her in to a sympathetic figure. I agree with the pundits that they overcharged her. I bet she is a free woman by the weekend.

It's not like I don't believe Casey killed Caylee, because I do. But I can't sit here and complain about the Jury's decision. They made the right one. Baez did a good job of repeating that the prosecution proved absolutely NOTHING.

Deep down, I agree with you in some respect. I know she killed Caylee, but I never though the state was able to prove it "beyond a reasonable doubt." And that's what our system requires.

Deep down, I agree with you in some respect. I know she killed Caylee, but I never though the state was able to prove it "beyond a reasonable doubt." And that's what our system requires.

 

That's what the system requires "sometimes". When we have jurors we never know what we'll get. Is the only way to not have reasonable doubt that there has to be a video tape? The defense was that she drowned and covered up an accidental drowning. And the fake nanzy's name was Zanny? Zanny? Unbelievable. Sometimes when the killer hides the body and it's not found for a period of time there is some evidence that is obviously going to be lost. So it's ok to not convict someone who does that? Lunacy.

That's what the system requires "sometimes". When we have jurors we never know what we'll get. Is the only way to not have reasonable doubt that there has to be a video tape? The defense was that she drowned and covered up an accidental drowning. And the fake nanzy's name was Zanny? Zanny? Unbelievable. Sometimes when the killer hides the body and it's not found for a period of time there is some evidence that is obviously going to be lost. So it's ok to not convict someone who does that? Lunacy.

 

Sorry, did you have a suggestion for another system that might work?

Not a surprise...the jurors are refusing to talk to the press afterwards.

Deep down, I agree with you in some respect. I know she killed Caylee, but I never though the state was able to prove it "beyond a reasonable doubt." And that's what our system requires.

 

I've heard the phrase the "CSI affect", where jurors are expecting everything to be laid out for them in a nice, neat package. There might not be a video tape showing the act, but I'm sure there was more than one juror who expected Gil Grissom to magically appear and bring out all this "evidence". When he didn't show, then they felt let down and figured that there's obviously reasonable doubt.

 

To me, the phrase "beyond reasonable doubt" has often been replaced by "beyond ANY doubt". There may, and often is, SOME doubt (unless you've got that video tape). The question is...is the doubt that is still there...REASONABLE?

Let me ask I didn't follow this case. What evidence did the prosecution provide of first degree murder or even manslaughter? If the defense claimed accidental drowning what did the prosecution provide to show that wasn't the case?

Now she becomes a societal paraiah. At least she has he freedom, but that's not an enticing option either. I say she's out clubbing within a week.

 

What's going to be sick about this is that she is going to be making paid appearances like Octo-Mom. Our society will still buy all of the magazines that she appears in, whether they despise her or not. Our society will actually give her fame, just watch. I'm sick thinking about it.

Let me ask I didn't follow this case. What evidence did the prosecution provide of first degree murder or even manslaughter? If the defense claimed accidental drowning what did the prosecution provide to show that wasn't the case?

 

A computer search, a chloroform test in her trunk, and some hair. No proof that she actually killed her.

What's going to be sick about this is that she is going to be making paid appearances like Octo-Mom. Our society will still buy all of the magazines that she appears in, whether they despise her or not. Our society will actually give her fame, just watch. I'm sick thinking about it.

Probably a movie deal.

I've heard the phrase the "CSI affect", where jurors are expecting everything to be laid out for them in a nice, neat package. There might not be a video tape showing the act, but I'm sure there was more than one juror who expected Gil Grissom to magically appear and bring out all this "evidence". When he didn't show, then they felt let down and figured that there's obviously reasonable doubt.

 

To me, the phrase "beyond reasonable doubt" has often been replaced by "beyond ANY doubt". There may, and often is, SOME doubt (unless you've got that video tape). The question is...is the doubt that is still there...REASONABLE?

 

Agreed. It's really sad too.

A computer search, a chloroform test in her trunk, and some hair. No proof that she actually killed her.

 

She's dead. Is it reasonable that they covered up an accidental drowning with Zanny the missing nanny? Her mom blatently lied on the stand saying she was the one that searched for chloroform, but at the time of the search she was at work.

That's what the system requires "sometimes".

For good or bad, that is what is required ALWAYS...100% of the time. This time, the system just didn't work so well.

I heard the talking heads say that the jury did not hear all of the evidence or discussion that we did as the viewing public.

 

Any examples?

For good or bad, that is what is required ALWAYS...100% of the time. This time, the system just didn't work so well.

 

What I meant was different jurors have different definitions of reasonable doubt. It isn't a reasonable explanation that she covered up an accidental drowning because her brother and dad sexually assaulted her without ever even saying anything ever again about the alleged sexual assault. Just because a case lacks clear DNA evidence or a smoking gun doesn't mean the defense or the presumption of innocence is reasonable.