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?

 

I've heard the same thing, but no explanation of what they mean. I'd like to know as well.

The defense doesn't have to prove anything.

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?

 

Interview from the mistress of her father that implied he knew what had happened. Also, the media often replays important things that are said in court that maybe the jurors (who are all not the most educated people in the world) may have missed. That's the only thing I can think of.

So the jury says she didn't do it, I wonder who actually did do it? Who had a motive to take this baby's life, just like who wanted Nicole and Ron dead, who had a motive in that case?

The defense doesn't have to prove anything.

 

Exactly. One of the talking heads was screaming that it had to be a guilty verdict because the tape was found around the child's jaw. Was that ever a debate?

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.

So her reason for covering up the accidental drowning was because her brother and dad assaulted her? What in the world does that have to do with the little girl drowning?

The defense doesn't have to prove anything.

 

Baez made it clear to the Jury that the prosecution had the burden of proof. They simply didn't have enough proof.

O.J., meet Casey. Nicole, this is Caylee... :cry:

 

I am not sure anyone could have put it better than that.

My heart hurts.

What we 100% do know is that the Anthony family is filled with derelicts.

Baez made it clear to the Jury that the prosecution had the burden of proof. They simply didn't have enough proof.

 

I agree. I believe she killed her, but I do not think they proved it.

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.

 

You do realize they found a nanny by that name right? She says she's never met Casey Anthony though.

 

Also, the fact that they had sworn testimony from someone who testified that her father confessed to her that "it was a terrible mistake that spiraled out of control", is quite the damaging testimony for the prosecution IMO.

So the jury says she didn't do it, I wonder who actually did do it? Who had a motive to take this baby's life, just like who wanted Nicole and Ron dead, who had a motive in that case?

Their claim is that nobody did it.

Also, the fact that they had sworn testimony from someone who testified that her father confessed to her that "it was a terrible mistake that spiraled out of control", is quite the damaging testimony for the prosecution IMO.

I think he was just saying that he thought Casey had accidentally killed her.

Doesn't suprise me at all. Prosecution lacked hard facts. All based on therory.

I think he was just saying that he thought Casey had accidentally killed her.

 

Right, but am I correct in my assumption that an "accidental" killing isn't 1st degree murder?