<p>So did the jury think it was the defense’s theory (that George and Lee sexually abused Casey, Cayley accidentally drowned and George hid the body) was more probable than the prosecution’s theory?</p>
<p>As far as I know, the jury said that they didn’t know how Caylee died, so there was no way to claim that Casey was a murderer if we’re not even sure a murder took place to begin with.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I never stated otherwise. I merely don’t agree.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A) If justice were blind minorities wouldn’t be convicted and jailed at a higher percentage rate. Not wanting to argue this but you get my point. Because something happens doesn’t mean it’s the ideal or best practice. </p>
<p>B) Cases aren’t won on circumstantial evidence. They are won because prosecutors “connect” the circumstantial evidence showing a pattern in a clear and compelling manner that can’t be explained away…</p>
<p>C) This prosecutor in this case couldn’t connect them so yes “the large amount of circumstantial evidence” amounted to essentially being no evidence…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LOL… Reread my post. 
I edited it…</p>
<p>“Taking something as proof despite other explanations” isn’t exactly something to be proud of. It IS a fact of life though. Shrug… </p>
<p>Can’t do anything about it.</p>
<p>From what i know about the chloroform search,and i am not 100% certain, Casey searched the word after seeing a BOyfriend with a flier/picture posted on his faceboook/Myspace page with the word chloroform on it…</p>
<p>There has been some discussion that all the TV shows where there is irrefutable evidence of guilt from forensic lab work have made jurors want that direct “positive” evidence in order to convict.</p>
<p>I personally believe that a juror who felt the defendant is guilty but acquited on the basis of there not being enough evidence to convict both understood and did what the law required under the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s pretty much it in a nutshell for me. I don’t know if Casey murdered Caylee, so I’m glad I wasn’t charged with the job of being a juror on this case. As an observer, however, the actions described above show Casey to be a pretty despicable human being, and even if she did not intentionally kill her child, her behavior is nevertheless about as horrible as it gets. She waited a month to report her baby missing, lying all the while in the face of repeated queries about the child and having a good ole time partying it up without her. I just can’t find a way to excuse or explain her behavior in that month. Just pretty sinister.</p>
<p>I don’t recall seeing anyone actually say they think she is a good person…</p>
<p>People have a problem with it because it’s always appalling to see such sinister people get away with something egregious.</p>
<p>It’s much harder to exercise true objectivity when the person in question doesn’t have the best moral/ethical character.</p>
<p>When you compound that with the fact that she was a mother that could have potentially killed her own child, the exercise in objectivity becomes even harder.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Shrug, I see that as a character flaw. There are plenty of people that overcome this weakness. Much like the Amish did after that shooting in PA in 2009. Urging forgiveness for the killer that killed their children.</p>
<p>We may be human but we aren’t slaves to our emotions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Calling her a victim goes too far in diverting attention from her horrific, sociopathic behavior. Legally, the difference between finding her guilty of murder and not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is large and critical to the concept of justice. In all other respects, I don’t find the distinction very important at all. She’s as bad as it gets without even being a purposeful murderer.</p>
<p>The one thing this thread has proven is that most people are indeed influenced by their emotions.</p>
<p>One aspect I never did hear about – how did she explain the duct tape/sticker thing?</p>
<p>xslacker: I deleted my last post because I misunderstood what you said.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You won’t get an argument over that. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The excuse that the defense dreamed up is that the little girl drowned while in her mother’s “care.” The mother panicked and so went to great lengths to make it look as though her daughter was murdered, as one does after the horrific fact of a beloved child drowning. </p>
<p>Oh, no, wait a minute…</p>
<p>I mean, really, this is what is passing as reasonable doubt these days? I despair. As I said above, I didn’t follow the trial close enough to have a firm opinion but I will say that I think the defense really lucked out with a jury who was at least open to this theory.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oy, you needed a thread for that? All people are influenced by their emotions.</p>
<p>Mother has care and custody of 2 year old. Mother fails to report that child is missing for month, parties hard and acquires a “good life” tattoo while child is missing, tells wild lies about the child’s whereabouts, has auto that smells of decomposition, after arrest spins completely unsubstantiated tale of parental abuse and conspiracy about making an accident look like a murder. Forget the chloroform, forget a cause of death. That stack of facts is enough for me to convict of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. How appalling that all a murderer has to do these days to get away with the crime is kill in private and hide the body long enough for it to decompose.</p>
<p>Good thing this country uses laws and juries…</p>