<p>Premise 1) In America, we are presumed innocent.
Premise 2) Outside of the legal world innocence means she didn’t do it.
Premise 3) None of us know if she did it or not for sure.
Premise 4) She was found not guilty.
Premise 5) she maintains her innocences.</p>
<p>So based on our premises which we know to be true.</p>
<p>Legally she is innocent. Outside of the legal world we don’t KNOW if she is innocent of murder or not so the only logical choice is that she IS innocent. If you feel or think she is guilty, no matter the reason, the burden to prove that is on you. Until you prove it, any claim of guilt is a non sequitur. You make the claim, you have to prove it.</p>
<p>You can opine she is guilty of murder all you want. Prove it. We are not opining that she is innocent. She is innocent until something proves otherwise. Is it possible she killed her? Maybe… </p>
<p>It’s also possible that alien abduct people every year. PROVE IT…</p>
<p>jsanche, she more than lied to investigators. She disposed of a body improperly. She covered up an accident. She staged a murder (if it was indeed an accident!). She let her parents search for a kid who was never literally missing, as she knew where she was. She also didn’t honor her child in death, but quite the opposite. These are not opinions.</p>
<p>Add in that she did indeed lie to investigators, it is understandable that people consider her guilty of SOME wrongdoing and it is not simply about “disliking” her as you are assigning to others.</p>
<p>And lying is not proof of anything. Though, since we KNOW she is a liar, her claiming to know about the body, and the story of the lying could also be…</p>
<p>Lies.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I almost don’t want to say it but mother’s don’t exactly act rational when confronted with the possible mortality of their children. </p>
<p>So I guess I shouldn’t be surprised at the irrational reaction.</p>
<p>Yes, and in fact, her claiming there was a pool accident and her dad disposed of the body and staged it to look like a murder could also be…lies. The jury did not feel the prosecution proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt for murder, but it doesn’t mean they believed the pool story either.</p>
<p>I actually found it surprising that Baez called Casey a liar in court. Because how do you say on the one hand she is a liar and then say, “Here is her story, please believe it!”</p>
<p>It is interesting, too, though, Sooz, when the alternate jury spoke about the lying, he mentioned that the lying started long before the Calee thing, and that was a part of the reasonable doubt. He said for him it was a matter of reasonable doubt more than believing she was innocent and that the state just didn’t prove their case. Case closed. (pun intended.)</p>
<p>xSlacker: The problem is there’s a LOT of circumstantial evidence present. If it were just one or two bits, that’s one thing. But this case is loaded with it.</p>
<p>It’s not like we’re looking at a situation where we hear a scream, rush into the room, and find a man wrestling a half-dressed woman to the ground, and immediately declare “This guy is a rapist!” when there are so many reasonable explanations that could be supported by evidence.</p>
<p>This is a case where the events are consistent with a woman who played a role in killing and burying her own child, tried to cover it all up, misled officials, misled her parents, lied about everything under the sun, and threw everyone else under the bus. It’s hard to reach any other conclusion without really warping the evidence to fit the conclusion rather than letting the evidence simply speak for itself.</p>
<p>Unfortunately there’s no easy place to draw the line at how much circumstantial evidence is necessary for a verdict. At some point you need something to really tie it all together.</p>
<p>In the article linked in post 1129, the alternate juror stated:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And I think this is what many are also saying here. Many are saying that the case was hard to prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt. People had some doubts as to whether there were other possibilities of what happened or how it happened. But that doesn’t mean people consider Casey innocent in the involvement of her daughter’s death. But the jury is charged with finding her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and were unable to do THAT. That doesn’t mean they all think she is innocent of wrongdoing but simply that they cannot prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Doubts don’t mean innocence. It means not being 100% sure of guilt. A juror may be leaning 90% toward the defendant being guilty but if not 100% sure, then he/she must find the defendant not guilty.</p>
<p>There was no actual evidence that showed for a fact that Caylee physically committed the crime. You cannot place her with certainty at the crime scene. That’s the same thing as saying: She wasn’t there. </p>
<p>So please, elucidate us on how you came to the conclusion that events are consistent with her having perpetrated the crime.</p>
<p>For one thing, Caylee was the victim, not the mother.</p>
<p>There was no evidence she directly committed the crime, but the evidence is <em>consistent with the fact that she did</em>. In other words, given the circumstantial evidence, if we were to find direct evidence, with high probability it would be linking the mother to the crime.</p>
<p>out of curiosity jsanche…who do you think killed caylee… a stranger? or a family member? that is my problem…it only makes sense that casey or casey and george did it…even they say they were involved (accident) …murder?..wouldnt have voted for that but the lesser charge i could have lived with.</p>
<p>another question for jsanche32 – Do you think there is such a thing as a case that should be won if it is based on only circumstantial evidence?</p>
<p>Subjectively speaking, this is what I got: (post #965)</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>Alright, let me put it this way, then, using an isolated example.</p>
<p>The searches for chloroform – Cindy Anthony claimed to be the one who performed the search for it on the computer. She said she searched for chlorophyll because she was afraid of the dogs getting poisoned from eating bamboo out in the backyard. However, there was no evidence for a search for “chlorophyll” – but there was for “chloroform,” and there was evidence that someone tried erasing the search history. There was also a search for “neck breaking” and “chest injuries,” covered up with the explanation that there was a pop-up advertising a Youtube video describing a skateboard stunt that was called a “neck-breaking feat.” Not only is this completely bogus based on search history, but the neck-breaking search was entered into Google directly.</p>
<p>Cindy was also confirmed as being logged onto her computer at work, at the hospital, during the time she supposedly made these searches.</p>
<p>Also look at her testimony video where she gives a very, very obviously-deliberate slip of the tongue by confusing chloroform – I mean chlorophyll – in her explanation of the events.</p>
<p>In my mind, that’s not really “speculation.” It’s evidence of outright lying and it’s evidence that gives fuel to another (more probable) explanation of events.</p>
<p>Let me guess – you don’t believe in evolution, either? Lots of “circumstantial evidence”? Those fossils were probably placed there by God, eh? We can’t directly prove it, right?</p>
<p>It would have to depend on the amount and quality of the CS evidence. In this case, the CS evidence was pretty weak. When combined with the non-existent direct evidence, the outcome was pretty obvious.</p>
<p>Younghoss, though you may feel there was evidence that was convicting enough, which I agree, all the dots were there, but no lines to connect them. There was no “smoking gun” no eye witnesses, it comes down to not what you can infer or what you believe may have happened, but what happened and is tangible evidence. There was no caught “red-handed” or close to it. It like having the clothes of a person and guessing who it is that wore them. It was all there just not that “defining” piece of evidence. You don’t convict on belief or inferences of their personality but on evidence.</p>