Verdict is in...

[TheGent]

First, as far as the bolded section above, it is not the jury's duty to prove anything. The burden of proof lies solely on the prosecution.

As far as the texts/partying trend go, it only proves that she wanted to party. You're saying the jury has to make inferences from circumstantial evidence. I charge you with this: say your neighbor was shot with a .45. Then, say it was discovered that you own several .45 caliber handguns. And, say that you had texted your wife that you hate your neighbor because he's always making a racket and you can't stand it.

Would you want the jury to "deduce [that] a fact exists" in this case?

You cannot choose when circumstantial evidence can be considered actual evidence - there must be a strict standard.

You're right on your first statement. It is the prosecution's responsibility. I mixed things up.

I have an alibi. Ask my wife. And the spent casing found at the scene was Blazer brand. I only have Winchester, PMC and Remington in my ammo cans.

I get your point, but you're going to have to conjure up a more elaborate scenario in order to prove your point. The little facts you give, well, you can't deduce anything from. On the other hand there is a mountain of circumstantial evidence to make a deduction from in the Casey Anthony Trial.

When all is said and done we have to let the case rest. She got off. I just hope the Orange County Police pursue an on going investigation because the case is not closed right?. It could have been. If Casey Anthony "didn't do it." Who did? And what will George and Cindy do to pursue the situation? I couldn't rest at the verdict today if I were in George and Cindy's shoes. Though we will watch now as Casey Anthony strolls carelessly through her "beautiful life."

 

[meastt]

Our judicial system is so flawed and so watered down that most people from dope dealers to now child killers can get away with almost anything so long as they retain a real defense attorney and have a little cash.

So as it stands a little girl is murdered and people are standing around talking about reasonable doubt. Pathetic. We Failed You Caylee, I'm so sorry.

 

[TheGent]

Let's step it back a notch then. The fact that she did not report Caylee missing for 31 days is proof beyond reasonable doubt for the charge of aggravated child abuse of which she was found "NOT GUILTY."

The Definition of Child Abuse at a minimum as defined by Federal Law:
"Federal legislation lays the groundwork for States by identifying a minimum set of acts or behaviors that define child abuse and neglect. The Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), (42 U.S.C.A. §5106g), as amended by the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003, defines child abuse and neglect as, at minimum:

Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation; or
An act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm."

This is the jury doing their duty????????????? I wonder how many members on this jury the prosecution wanted to strike, but were denied that?

 

[Gacowboy]

Yet no chloroform found during toxicology tests.

on what? all you had was bones no body.

 

[Gacowboy]

Let's step it back a notch then. The fact that she did not report Caylee missing for 31 days is proof beyond reasonable doubt for the charge of aggravated child abuse of which she was found "NOT GUILTY."

The Definition of Child Abuse at a minimum as defined by Federal Law:
"Federal legislation lays the groundwork for States by identifying a minimum set of acts or behaviors that define child abuse and neglect. The Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), (42 U.S.C.A. §5106g), as amended by the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003, defines child abuse and neglect as, at minimum:

Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation; or
An act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm."

This is the jury doing their duty????????????? I wonder how many members on this jury the prosecution wanted to strike, but were denied that?

great post, FACTS,FACTS, FACTS, but some people do not like facts, they think this system of ours is so great, well ANY SYSTEM THAT LETS CHILD KILLERS OFF IS BS, all this talk about you have to prove it, IT WAS PROVED and they still let her go, the jury was a bunch of fools.

 

[Gacowboy]

this was such a bs trail that jeff ashton quit yesterday.

 

[dwalt]

Let's step it back a notch then. The fact that she did not report Caylee missing for 31 days is proof beyond reasonable doubt for the charge of aggravated child abuse of which she was found "NOT GUILTY."

The Definition of Child Abuse at a minimum as defined by Federal Law:
"Federal legislation lays the groundwork for States by identifying a minimum set of acts or behaviors that define child abuse and neglect. The Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), (42 U.S.C.A. §5106g), as amended by the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003, defines child abuse and neglect as, at minimum:

Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation; or
An act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm."

This is the jury doing their duty????????????? I wonder how many members on this jury the prosecution wanted to strike, but were denied that?

First of all, the charge was Aggravated Child Abuse, not Child Abuse. See the FL statute below:

827.03(2) "Aggravated child abuse" occurs when a person:

(a) Commits aggravated battery on a child;

(b) Willfully tortures, maliciously punishes, or willfully and unlawfully cages a child; or

(c) Knowingly or willfully abuses a child and in so doing causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the child.

The prosecution did not prove that she did any of the above.

great post, FACTS,FACTS, FACTS, but some people do not like facts, they think this system of ours is so great, well ANY SYSTEM THAT LETS CHILD KILLERS OFF IS BS, all this talk about you have to prove it, IT WAS PROVED and they still let her go, the jury was a bunch of fools.

Clearly you have no idea what proof means. You probably sat around and just soaked up everything the media said throughout the trial. The jury, thankfully, was shielded from all of the media crap and only heard what was presented in the case.

 

[medicoc]

I'm not knocking DNA evidence as if it were not valid in a case.

I know that, I was just offering an explanation for why jurors trust DNA and other forensic/science based evidence more. Maybe they feel or expect that DNA should be on everything, and when it's not they have reservations.

 

[medicoc]

on what? all you had was bones no body.

A body is rarely just bone. My guess is they tested hair.

 

[CCW]

Toxicology testing for chloroform is done on the hair as well as the skeleton. Neither produced traces.