<p>I’m the only one actually debating the credibility of the evidence.</p>
<p>Most of you are: “She was partying it up after her kid died. GUILTY!!!”</p>
<p>That’s your mentality.</p>
<p>I’m only 17 so i could be totally wrong but i agree with jsanche that i think most parents can’t help but become emotionally attached to this case. Most parents adore their children and couldn’t imagine EVER harming them or carrying on their life is something did happen to them even accidentally. However, i think we can all agree that Casey was not a normal parent. She has serious issues, whether they were brought on by an abusive father or not. All of you parents on here seem like amazing parents. You love your kids and take an interest in their lives. I’m certain that had Caylee lived, Casey would not have been on here in 14 years discussing college options and ways to improve test scores. Casey didn’t seem to care about her daughter and that seems to upset a lot of parents (including mine). It’s not my parent’s fault that they can’t separate their emotions from the evidence presented but i do feel that it is hindering them from objectively viewing the case.</p>
<p>It’s definitely required when your entire basis for a prosecution rests on a very specific cause of death.</p>
<p>This was a clear case of an extremely arrogant and overconfident prosecution.</p>
<p>Instead of aiming for the moon (capital murder), they could have aimed for something that they could have actually convicted her with (manslaughter)</p>
<p>If you want to point fingers, point them right there.</p>
<p>The circumstantial evidence in the Peterson case is SIGNIFICANTLY stronger then any piece of evidence provided by this prosecution team…</p>
<p>This is what I stated two pages ago:</p>
<p>My objective belief is that there wasn’t enough proof to convict her of killing her daughter.</p>
<p>Subjectively speaking, it looks like her daughter may have drowned and she panicked. She tried to cover up the drowning (It’s completely possible that she tried to do this because she truly was negligent and she didn’t want the police finding this out) .</p>
<p>Once she built up a web of lies, she continued on with her lies/obfuscations by sheer inertia. After a period of this, she started to go into denial (Easier to go into denial than actually think about the fact that your daughter drowned and you might be responsible). That’s when she started going out to parties etc… She wanted to to push the memories of the event completely out of her mind.</p>
<p>If it was an accident then they had to believe as mom2ck said that they disguised it as a murder ie the duct tape…</p>
<p>WAIT…I never suggested that GEORGE was part of the cover up AT ALL. He certainly would have known better than to put the body so close to the home.</p>
<p>The circumstantial evidence in the Peterson case is SIGNIFICANTLY stronger then any piece of evidence provided by this prosecution team…</p>
<p>???</p>
<p>Like what???</p>
<p>Being objective does not mean suspending common sense. The only thing that makes sense, looking at the totality of the evidence, is that Caylee was killed. The only culprit that makes sense, based on the totality of the evidence, is that her mother did it. Juries are allowed to fill in the blanks, connect the dots, use their common sense to figure out what happened. I don’t think this jury did that. I don’t know whether it was because they were tired and wanted to go home or because they were incapable of doing it. Sometimes it takes one strong juror to make sure the rest of them really look at the evidence and put it all together. Unfortunately for Caylee, there must not have been someone like that on this jury.</p>
<p>Edited to correct Caylee’s name above.</p>
<p>Oh, so now common sense is used to fill in the blanks instead of actual evidence and is then used to convict people.</p>
<p>Brilliant. I bow down to your judicial acumen.</p>
<p>Haha, cartera45. I was confused for a second because you said Casey (defendant) was kill by her mother (Cindy). I got what your were saying but i had to stop and think.</p>
<p>We all use common sense to fill in blanks all the time. Jurors are no different. When a body is found in a swamp, wrapped in garbage bags it is reasonable to assume foul play, even if no one saw it happen and there is no direct evidence of cause of death. You work back from that and ask who was with the person last with, who had a motive, who had the means? Both direct evidence and circumstantial evidence go together to answer those questions.</p>
<p>Edited to add - yes, I confused the names. I guess I should say “tot mom” too.</p>
<p>sorry mom2ck… should have said “she” not they unless the jury believed that george was involved too and then it would be they.</p>
<p>I think the prosecution is going to look back and realize that there was certain evidence that they did have that they didn’t use…</p>
<p>I think that they thought that they had shown enough, but they had more…and they should have used it.</p>
<p>The cirumstancial evidence presented was pretty ambiguous and some parts were even outright refuted. Which was why they took so little time to deliberate this case.</p>
<p>Their main argument (Which was just awful) was that she was partying it up after her child died. How could a mother react like that after the death of a child if it was accidental? It was an incredibly badly though out argument. They even used the picture of her partying it up/tattoo in their closing arguments.</p>
<p>It was by far the worst prosecution of a capital case that I have ever seen.</p>
<p>jsanche32,
The case could go either way. Reasonableness in “reasonable doubt” varies from one group of jury to another. Reasnableness also implies usage of common sense; that’s what carter45 was talking about. Before you paint me as another “biased” paraent, I am actually not even a parent and I haven’t taken any side as far as this case goes. But I think it’s actually naive of you to think evey conviction should require the kind of proof you want - the kind of “actual evidence” that eliminates <em>any</em> doubt, not just reasonable doubt.</p>
<p>Still waiting for proof she did it…i believe she was involved, but await evidence to prove it…If the prosecution had evidence and withheld it,that would be a collossal blunder…</p>
<p>I don’t require no doubt. I require actual evidence that she may have committed the crime.</p>
<p>And I’m sorry, but the prosecutors did not present a case were they proved that she was physically able to commit the crime. What they mainly argued about was intent. (Which carries no weight with me)</p>
<p>*sorry mom2ck… should have said “she” not they unless the jury believed that george was involved too and then it would be they. *</p>
<p>:)</p>
<p>And George, since he was a former police officer and had experience with leaking and smelly dead bodies (and he’s a neat freak) would not have put Caylee in the trunk and KEPT her there to leak/smell the car up. </p>
<p>If he had a part in it, he would have adequately wrapped her up and dumped the body within a short time of her death…a long time before leaking…a long time before smelling. So, there never would have been a body smell in the car.</p>
<p>The prosecution should have explained that during closing arguments.</p>
<p>I wonder if in cases like this…the prosecution should set up “practice juries” first to tell their case to…to identify weaknesses/confusion.</p>
<p>The fake juries could have those dial pads in their hands where they “dial up” when they’re hearing convincing stuff and dial down when they’re confused or they don’t believe/understand something.</p>
<p>^^^unless of George wanted it to look like casey did it, as nobody would think a police officer would be that stupid. ;)</p>
<p>I haven’t read this whole thread… I wonder if it is like the Duke LAX thread, where all of CC declared them guilty.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s all nice and dandy until it’s not true. Anyone remember the Central Park Jogger Rape case??? Eye witness identified three men, circumstantial evidence nailed them… 2 of them even confessed… They all (5 of them) implicated each other. 3 were convicted</p>
<p>All three released after what ~13 years when DNA evidence cleared them.</p>
<p>Common sense is NOT evidence… Nor is it all that common.</p>