<p>The sentencing tomorrow could get interesting; there is no guarantee Casey will walk out scott free tomorrow. The state attorney is embarassed about not getting a felony conviction and may press hard tomorrow to keep Casey under state supervision somehow. If Casey is out on the street under supervision, the state could get her violated for some kind of infraction and get her back in jail–every cop and citizen will be watching her every move.</p>
<p>07Dad, you beat me to it. I was just thinking sacco and vanzetti.</p>
<p>In the the fin de siecle france, where you “stood” on this trial was a big issue. It shows up in many biographies of famous people from that era.</p>
<p>I’m sure the reason “innocent until proven” guilty was put in our constitution was to protect from the historical “lynch mob.” There would have been a lynch mob in this case, for sure. It’s very upsetting to people on many levels.</p>
<p>Still, I’d rather live in a country where it is the job of the prosecution to PROVE the crime than the job of the defense to prove innocence, personally.</p>
<p>An incredibly tough case is when there is tons of evidence for conviction and you get a verdict of not guilty. As most people realize now, there was no real evidence for conviction of the charges she was brought up on. I don’t think the defense team did one thing to win the case. The Prosecution lost the case with no evidence. The defense did not win.</p>
<p>I think there was a wealth of evidence upon which to convict. To me, it is the only reasonable conclusion. Everything I heard that pointed away from Casey was unreasonable to believe and could only be believed if common sense was suspended - in my opinion.</p>
<p>I just think there was too much reasonable doubt when it was a capital case, or even for murder one.</p>
<p>I think the ambition of the prosecutors got the best of them, honestly. Once you know you might be sending someone to the lethal injection, psychologically, I’m certain your reasonable doubt bar just goes WAY up. Then, once you have reasonable doubt for murder? You have reasonable doubt.</p>
<p>Do you have clear evidence no one else has? The circumstantial evidence is NOT clear as evidenced by the jury verdict and all the controversy. </p>
<p>Which is my point exactly… Your claim is a non sequitur precisely you haven’t even seen all of the evidence, merely what was presented in the media in the slant they chose… Conclusive evidence would be… well, conclusive.</p>
<p>Logic dictates that your opinion is based on belief because you don’t have all the facts and with out all the facts your conclusion is based on false premises and are therefore illogical. Notice that I don’t claim her innocence as being because she is innocent (which would also be a belief), but because there is no logical way to prove any other position (which is a fact).</p>
<p>You are free to believe whatever you wish. This is America. You should, however, be aware that believing in something doesn’t equate to proof of something. A fact many people seem to forget.</p>
<p>Which goes back to the friendly aliens on planet Xebo… If you want to make that claim you need conclusive evidence to back it up. Thinking and believing and “common sense” are not proof as they are all subjective and are most often highly influenced by your feelings.</p>
<p>According to the American Anthropological Association about 200 women kill their children in the United States each year. Three to five children a day are killed by their parents. Just horrible.</p>
<p>I’m with xslacker on this one. Cartera45 has been going on and on about how she was indeed guilty and how “common sense” should have convicted her.</p>
<p>Honestly, its the decisions by people like her that get innocent people sent to death row.</p>
<p>Xiggi, because when you are quoting another person, one can infer that you may be responding to their thoughts. You went on to talk about what “we” think of the celebration by the defense team. I didn’t posit any thoughts about the celebration. If you wanted to discuss the media, it might have been clearer to quote the media, rather than me. I was only clarifying the confusion of the posters right before me who were unclear if it was a public or private setting.</p>
<p>I’m not defining what you MEANT, but simply how it was not a jump to infer that you were discussing MY post as you quoted ME and then discussed “we.”</p>
<p>In any case, it doesn’t matter any longer. I wanted to clarify my position because it may have appeared to others that you were arguing a point about the celebration and quoted me when I wasn’t arguing any point about the defense’s celebration. This inference is not far fetched and so I clarified my position for anyone reading along.</p>
<p>Ashton is making the rounds on the talk shows today. He is retiring tomorrow and I wonder if he will follow in Marcia Clark’s footsteps and write a book, etc.</p>
<p>On a funny note, Vivid Adult Films has offered a position…no, um, a job, to Casey. She can become their latest porn star. LOL. Who said their was no future in hot body contests.</p>
<p>xSlacker, do you believe that circumstantial evidence is less probative than direct evidence? Do you believe the jury should give more weight to direct evidence than circumstantial evidence? </p>
<p>You use the term “conclusive” evidence - again, if you are using the accepted definition of “conclusive,” you are using the wrong standard. </p>
<p>jsanche - I would never send anyone to death row. I could not serve on a death qualified jury.</p>
<p>Circumstantial evidence should be given minimal weight. In fact, it should only be used to strengthen direct evidence. (Ex. Someone hearing me tell you I am going to kill you, then being found a block away from where you died is NOT proof that I murdered you. Period. Now if the gun in my pocket matches the murder weapon or a video catches me, or my hair is in the blood then that circumstantial evidence, while not direct proof itself pretty much solidifies the other evidence.)</p>
<p>We all know that circumstantial evidence, eye witness testimony, and many forensic techniques are highly flawed. Like I mentioned before, the Central Park Jogger case highlights that. (Not the only case or even the best but the one that pops in my head first).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No I am not. We are not having a legal argument. The legal argument was decided with the jury. </p>
<p>The fact that the jury decided one way and the judge upheld the ruling automatically makes that decision the correct one or either the jury or the judge would have behaved differently. Not to mention all the backseat driving lawyers watching the case…</p>
<p>We are debating innocence/guilt, logic and your beliefs here. Your claim is that she is guilty and common sense should have dictated so. In that arena you can’t argue my logic.</p>
<p>It truly amazes me how much resentment there still exists for Casey. Sure, she’s a pretty ****ty mother, but for the love of god, she was found innocent. </p>
<p>Innocent here does not mean “she was guilty but the jury screwed up”, or “she was guilty but the prosecution screwed up”, or “She was found not guilty by a jury of her peers, but I using my infinite legal wisdom think she was guilty”.</p>
<p>You really need to stop. It’s honestly painful to watch how biased some of you are.</p>
<p>xSlacker, you have answered my question. You have no idea what circumstantial evidence is. It is, in many cases, the most probative evidence. The Central Park jogger case was decided on direct evidence - confessions and eye witness tesitmony. Unfortunately, the confessions were coerced - one reason circumstantial evidence can be more reliable than eye witness testimony or confessions. </p>
<p>I’m not arguing your logic, because your logic is based on a misunderstanding of the law. An understanding of the law and knowledge of the facts are both necessary to come to a reasoned decision. </p>
<p>I believe the jury got it wrong. Perhaps they were using the wrong legal standard too.</p>
<p>Makes you wonder how many people in American History were lynched, how many witches were burned at the hands of people that thought they “know better…”</p>
<p>jsanche, forget whether or not Casey Anthony murdered her daughter. Let’s say she didn’t. The jury did not convict her of murder. But going by HER story that the child died in an accident under her watch (it happens even to the best of parents), she admits to being part of covering up the accident and staging it to be a murder and allowing the child to be thrown in a swamp. She chose to not report the accident. She chose to allow her parents and the public to search for her D when she knew her D was not missing and she knew where she was and what happened to her. She lied about the child being kidnapped. She lied the entire time when people were trying to help find her kid. She is guilty of all those things. That is pure fact. So, what is wrong with people thinking poorly of all that? She was involved in pretty serious wrongdoing even if she never murdered her kid.</p>
<p>Casey was found innocent of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. It doesn’t mean she has done nothing that is egregious.</p>
<p>Circumstantial evidence is evidence in which an inference is required to connect it to a conclusion of fact. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or the intervening inference.</p>
<p>Circumstantial evidence is not probative. </p>
<p>I love this example…</p>
<p>Testimony can be direct evidence or it can be circumstantial. If the witness claims they saw the crime take place, this is considered direct evidence. For instance, a witness saying that the defendant stabbed the victim is direct evidence. By contrast, a witness who says that she saw the defendant enter a house, that she heard screaming, and that she saw the defendant leave with a bloody knife gives circumstantial evidence.</p>
<p>Me entering a house, you hearing a scream and then me walking out does NOT prove I killed anyone… Period… </p>
<p>A smoking gun and gun shot residue (i.e. direct evidence) is…</p>
<p>The fact that my “opinion” matches up with half of the lawyers plus the judge and the juries gives my opinion a little more credibility than yours don’tyathink???</p>