<p>All your post proves is that Caylee went missing under suspicious circumstances and Casey tried to cover that fact up.</p>
<p>I’m frankly amazed that you consider getting a tattoo “evidence”.</p>
<p>Keep in mind its mother mother posting. They are truly irrational when it comes to this case.</p>
<p>No more circumstantial than Scott Peterson buying porn channels and selling a bunch of his wife’s stuff.</p>
<p>Alan Dershowitz in an article.
[Expert</a> Alan Dershowitz: Anthony Prosecution Made ‘Dreadful Mistake’ | Here & Now](<a href=“http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2011/07/06/casey-anthony-dershowitz]Expert”>http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2011/07/06/casey-anthony-dershowitz)
"Harvard professor and famed defense attorney Alan Dershowitz told Here and Now‘s Robin Young, ” there are lots of people in jail and on death row on less evidence.”</p>
<p>Dershowitz continued that while there was “enough evidence to convict” in the case, there was also enough doubt about the evidence to acquit. That’s why, Dershowitz says, “We have juries not computers in America. We have a system that says better 10 guilty go free than one innocent be wrongly confined"</p>
<p>“We have a system that says better 10 guilty go free than one innocent be wrongly confined.” </p>
<p>Very good quote…</p>
<p>Of course he’s saying that. He fully supported the guilty verdict before they even went into deliberations. A lot of lawyers spoke up in favor of a guilty verdict and now they have to eat serious crow.</p>
<p>But their pride will not allow them to do that as it would imply a loss of face on a national level.</p>
<p>So they continue on with their claims, never admitting to their mistake.</p>
<p>I’m actually going to search for a lawyer that stated she was guilty but then changed his story after the verdict.</p>
<p>Because that would be truly amazing.</p>
<p>I do have to admit that my opinion of Dershowitz isn’t the best one because he is IMHO a plagiarizer.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why? Couldn’t it be that they still believe she is guilty in spite of the verdict? Why would the fact that the jury came to a different conclusion suddenly mean they must admit that they are wrong? Or are you saying these lawyers predicted a guilty verdict and now won’t admit that they predicted wrong?</p>
<p>Many people believe strongly that OJ killed Nicole Simpson. Very few people suddenly accepted he was innocent simply based on the fact that the jury acquitted him.</p>
<p>The second part.</p>
<p>^^^^I was listening to the radio when they broke in stating that a verdict had been reached. A pundit said that the haste of the decision had to make the prosecution feel very confident and the defense quite disappointed.</p>
<p>I thought, “Why? Couldn’t this just as easily reflect a complete and total rejection of the prosecution’s case?” Turned out to be so.</p>
<p>*No more circumstantial than Scott Peterson buying porn channels and selling a bunch of his wife’s stuff. *</p>
<p>Yes…that was telling. Ordering the porn channels and selling her car when she was still “missing” was proof that he knew that she wasn’t coming back.</p>
<p>I guess he should have later lied and said that Laci went fishing with him, she fell into the bay, he tried to save her but he couldn’t, and he was too embarrassed to admit his failure…so he pretended that she was missing. </p>
<p>With this Casey jury, he would have walked. </p>
<p>:rolleyes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The OJ case was filled with strong evidence, this one was not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Even a broken clock is right twice a day… ;)</p>
<p>The OJ trial was a very complicated legal affair though. From what I’ve read/researched/learned, based on all of the evidence it was clear he was guilty. Having said that, his lawyers attacked the credibility of the witnesses (Were the evidence came from), and through legal manouvering, were able to get them discredited and have the evidence they presented disqualified/thrown out. Once that evidence was thrown out, it made a possible conviction far less clear.</p>
<p>He lost his shirt in the civil suit though, and was hounded for years and years by the family.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let’s see–so if Casey had gotten a tattoo during the time Caylee was “missing” that said “Whee! I’m child free now and can live the good life!” that wouldn’t have been remotely evidentiary to you? You’re every murderer’s dream juror!</p>
<p>Yes, and partying it up when you’re a mother is now considered evidence that you committed a crime. /facepalm</p>
<p>Who are you kidding here? You’re just so morally outraged by her behavior that you see a huge guilty neon sign whenever you think about her situation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s not evidence of being a murderer period…</p>
<p>Put away your mother hat and think… If the charge was NEGLIGENT homicide it would be relevant perhaps. If the charge was being a bad parent sure.</p>
<p>No offense, but thoughts like these lead to innocent people in jail.</p>
<p>IF they are innocent then why:
Do they run?
Get a lawyer?
Party?
Not show the proper emotion?
Wake up in the morning?
And so on and so forth…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why would they change their story after the verdict? Are you arguing that juries are never wrong? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Knock it off with this nonsense. Mothers can reason just as well as those who are not mothers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you make a positive assertion you must prove it…</p>
<p>Clearly if partying is evidence of murder then intractability is evidence of irrationality…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…who knows her daughter is dead. </p>
<p>Have you known people whose young child has drowned? Died in an accident? Of a chronic illness? Did any of them party? Get a “good life” tattoo?</p>
<p>I’m not arguing that there is only one way to grieve. I am saying that her behavior after the death of her only child is outside the norm. That doesn’t make her guilty of murder but pretending that it’s only the partying that is suspect is dishonest. It’s the partying in the days/weeks after finding her daughter dead.</p>