Casey Anthony Trial

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by ThetaPrincess24

Now that the jurors are free to speak to the media, I'm intersted in hearing how they came to this wonderful conclusion.

I'll give you the short version:

-No direct physical evidence of defendant's involvement, plus

-No provable cause of death, plus

-A certain definition of "reasonable" doubt.

On the bright side, after the verdict (and the, shall we say, lax rebuttal), we might finally have to confront the bare facts: prosecutors are often exceptionally good at locking down very specific kinds of cases at a 99% clip, and often not all that good at actually performing for a jury in a court of law.

[DDDlove13]

This case is the most ridiculous and sickening thing ever. The jury should be ashamed! I live in Orlando and people are RIOTING over it, I'd be scared for my life if I was associated with the case in any way.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I'll give you the short version:

-No direct physical evidence of defendant's involvement, plus

-No provable cause of death, plus

-A certain definition of "reasonable" doubt.

On the bright side, after the verdict (and the, shall we say, lax rebuttal), we might finally have to confront the bare facts: prosecutors are often exceptionally good at locking down very specific kinds of cases at a 99% clip, and often not all that good at actually performing for a jury in a court of law.

Yeah, the little I saw of this case made me question these exact things. Just because she did a lot of things that look suspicious doesn't rise to the level of direct evidence. I feel sorry for jurors. It's hard to follow the letter of the law when you may have that gut feeling that someone is guilty but the State hasn't proved it beyond a reasonable doubt.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Yeah, the little I saw of this case made me question these exact things. Just because she did a lot of things that look suspicious doesn't rise to the level of direct evidence. I feel sorry for jurors. It's hard to follow the letter of the law when you may have that gut feeling that someone is guilty but the State hasn't proved it beyond a reasonable doubt.

We need to be careful here, though - while the case was largely circumstantial, circumstantial evidence is still evidence, and should usually be given the same consideration as direct evidence (per instruction of law).

Hell, most of the time circumstantial evidence is more reliable than eye witness testimony. It's hard to say whether jurors correctly applied the law as given to them, but it does seem like a pretty straightforward decision path.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

We need to be careful here, though - while the case was largely circumstantial, circumstantial evidence is still evidence, and should usually be given the same consideration as direct evidence (per instruction of law).

Hell, most of the time circumstantial evidence is more reliable than eye witness testimony. It's hard to say whether jurors correctly applied the law as given to them, but it does seem like a pretty straightforward decision path.

I know circumstantial evidence is evidence, but there were some holes there. I think for a lot of people, the fact that she didn't report her daughter missing for a month is all they had to hear to convict her. She's not exactly the type of person any one of us would want to be friends with, and she hasn't been proven innocent. The jury just didn't feel like they had enough to convict her.