<p>xSlacker, have you ever heard the phrase " a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing"? ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s actually not true. In CA, juries are told that both circumstantial and direct evidence have equal weight. They are also told that if the evidence can be seen as reasonably supporting two different conclusions, one equaling guilt and the other equaling innocence, they must go with innocence. And I’m not quoting a legal source here, just paraphrasing what we were told when I was on a jury in a vehicular manslaughter case.</p>
<p>Also, jsanche, citizens are entitled to their opinions about a case that was televised on TV and in the media constantly. Citizens are not on the jury and so whatever the jury decided is what counts. But stop lambasting others for having an opinion about the defendant and the case. You have your opinion of what she did or didn’t do and you are entitled to it. So are others, even if their opinion differs from yours. The only judgments that count are those of the jury. But if a trial is gonna be in the media to the extent this one does, you are in la la land if you think people are not going to have their own opinions of it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Now you know the OPINION of the JUDGE???</p>
<p>(not to mention that the defense lawyers don’t necessarily opine that their client is innocent but merely their job is to defend their innocence)</p>
<p>You’re not providing a rational opinion. You are using bad logic combined with bad science to justify your opinion. If I did the same thing, I would fully expect somebody to tell me that my opinion was dead wrong.</p>
<p>What I get from this thread is people desperately trying to come up with any rationalization/justification that she was guilty basically because…they just didn’t
like the defendant.</p>
<p>It’s that bias that is pretty much destroying your objectivity here.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Quoting Alexander Pope??? I find the lack of knowledge is even more dangerous.</p>
<p>The point where one goes from picking apart the argument to picking apart the arguer is the dawning of defeat. 
(Sorry subject didn’t match lol)</p>
<p>I find it better to make my own quotes.</p>
<p>Cartera is utilizing strawmen and I, admittedly my fault, am swinging at them. My original logic still stands…</p>
<p>Not one of you can logically claim she is guilty. Not from a personal or legal standpoint.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Pardon, let me expound. I KNOW he didn’t set aside the verdict. Since he DIDN’T set aside the verdict then the only proper conclusion is that it was correct. I don’t care about his personal opinion because opinion’s, beliefs and feelings mean nothing. At least in this argument…</p>
<p>I’ll stipulate that Baez’s opinion doesn’t count. However, were this an improper decision, all the OTHER attorney’s opining on the issue would have cried foul…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>People are not saying Casey Anthony was guilty of murder because they don’t like her (you sound like you are Baez). Many believe she was involved in her daughter’s death in some fashion and covered it up. As I wrote in post 1099, she is indeed factually guilty of several actions. Whether or not she was guilty of murder, none of us can prove but she is guilty of some wrongdoing surrounding her D’s death as outlined in post 1099. And based on the trial, some people would have found her guilty of manslaughter or child endangerment, etc. And some do understand that the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt was hard to come by. But just because there is doubt, it doesn’t mean people have to believe 100% that she didn’t do anything wrong in her D’s death and the circumstances surrounding the death.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think this is probably the most important point.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>She most certainly was not found innocent. </p>
<p>Personally, I do not believe the “my child drowned, I panicked, on and on and on” with the crazy tales. People get away with murder. And people are wrongly convicted. It’s not a perfect system. </p>
<p>I didn’t pay enough attention to have an opinion if the evidence was there for a conviction.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>xSlacker, the judge was doing his job. It was a fair trial and the jury handed down a verdict. The judge doesn’t opine if he agrees or not with the verdict but only that the law was followed and he allowed the procedures to be followed. Baez doesn’t have to believe Casey didn’t kill her daughter, but only has to defend her innocence as that is what his job entails. </p>
<p>As a reminder, you said your opinion agrees with half the attorneys involved, the judge and the jury. I say your opinion agrees with the jury.</p>
<p>I say this as someone who has a very close relative who has been a defense attorney, a judge, and is now the head of his state’s judiciary.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Quite a few have. You haven’t but my arguments weren’t directed at you. </p>
<p>I’m only speaking to being a murderer.</p>
<p>I’ve made no opinion to manslaughter or any of the other charges. I already made my opinion of her being a crappy mother…</p>
<p>You can’t prove she’s innocent. Even Baez in his closing stated that we really don’t know how Caylee died. You weren’t there - you don’ KNOW if she is innocent or guilty. A court rendered their opinion based on the evidence presented - that’s all. It’s doesn’t for one minte mean she’s innocent and YOU can’t say she is because YOU don’t KNOW.</p>
<p>You must have missed the media frenzy then. They practically had a noose set up for her.</p>
<p>She wasn’t a very likeable person and that made people pre-judge her.</p>
<p>Case in point: Look at this entire thread. Specially the mothers among us.</p>
<p>MASSIVE (And I do mean MASSIVE) bias against Casey.</p>
<p>Even now, they are still going at it. At this point you’d need a sledgehammer to convince people that there was no evidence to suggest she killed her daughter.</p>
<p>Also, regarding your opinion: What you’re really doing is saying: Well, she’s not guilty of the murder BUT…blah blah blah.</p>
<p>You are hiding your bias behind the shield of the judicial decision.</p>
<p>Jesus Christ. You don’t have to prove she is innocent. That’s not how the system works.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>kleibo, none of us knows for sure what happened. In fact, it is more complicated because the person involved has lied about so many things (and for that, she was indeed found guilty).</p>
<p>I believe she had something to do with the murder of her daughter. period.
I also thought that maybe the jurors are punishing the state for not doing their job when it was first reported that there was something in the woods spotted on Aug 11, 12 and 13th. Had they investigated then, it would be a whole different scenario now. We may have had better circumstantial evidence and better forensic evidence to go on.
and BTW, it doesnt matter the outcome of the case, she will always be known as “the baby killer” and that she will carry with her forever.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But it is not my opinion. I stated some facts. Here they are again (she is guilty of THESE things):</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is not my OPINION of Casey. She in fact, did some egregious things that nobody would find appropriate. It has nothing to do with liking or disliking her.</p>
<p>The only thing you can conclude from all that is that she lied to the Investigators.</p>
<p>And she was convicted of those crimes.</p>
<p>You cannot infer from her deceit/lies/obfuscations that she indeed did something to her daughter.</p>