Casey Anthony

The case was on shaky legs from the start. A circumstantially based prosecution better have a butt load of circumstantial evidence that excludes any other possibility. If it doesn't, it's going to get picked apart and render itself to alternative theories to a jury. This prosecution had no direct evidence. It had a lot of very disturbing trends though, but nothing that could directly prove she killed her child. That's reasonable doubt, and even more so when you start throwing experimental testing and evidence into the mix.

The testing of the hair and the testing of the trunk for evidence of decomp are FAR from tried and tested criminalistics. They are also far from tested legally either until these procedures can pass a Daubert or Frye test. I'm kinda shocked they even made it into court without a Daubert challenge. I suspect based on the description of the hair and decomp tests and what they can render as evidence, they wouldn't have been considered direct evidence anyway, so the defense didn't Daubert challenge them.

I don't think based on the publicity of the missing girl and the investigation, the prosecution could have continued to postpone the prosecution. They just didn't have enough the evidence to close the deal. I suspect she either did the killing or was involved in the killing before and after the act based on the circumstantial evidence, but I couldn't have committed to a guilty verdict if on the jury either. Their was way too much drama and way too substance.

I bet Nancy Grace had 5 strokes in a row today.

Breaking News:

Obam Sells Ak To The Russians To Offset National Debt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mtn.man

Breaking News:

Obam Sells Ak To The Russians To Offset National Debt.

---

Man, I hope that's not true. It was the only place not covered in zombies in the Resident Evil movies, so that was my fall-back location if I couldn't just kill them all by throwing registered Brady supporters at them. (I would shoot the zombies, but ammo ain't cheap anymore.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SA Friday

The case was on shaky legs from the start. A circumstantially based prosecution better have a butt load of circumstantial evidence that excludes any other possibility. If it doesn't, it's going to get picked apart and render itself to alternative theories to a jury. This prosecution had no direct evidence. It had a lot of very disturbing trends though, but nothing that could directly prove she killed her child. That's reasonable doubt, and even more so when you start throwing experimental testing and evidence into the mix.

The testing of the hair and the testing of the trunk for evidence of decomp are FAR from tried and tested criminalistics. They are also far from tested legally either until these procedures can pass a Daubert or Frye test. I'm kinda shocked they even made it into court without a Daubert challenge. I suspect based on the description of the hair and decomp tests and what they can render as evidence, they wouldn't have been considered direct evidence anyway, so the defense didn't Daubert challenge them.

I don't think based on the publicity of the missing girl and the investigation, the prosecution could have continued to postpone the prosecution. They just didn't have enough the evidence to close the deal. I suspect she either did the killing or was involved in the killing before and after the act based on the circumstantial evidence, but I couldn't have committed to a guilty verdict if on the jury either. Their was way too much drama and way too substance.

---

This. Remember folks emotional feelings aside The prosecution failed to
PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT Casey did kill her daughter.
as with the OJ tria,l had Mark Fhurman said sure i used racial slurs while on the job. Show me any beat cop no matter what color their skin is who hasn't and i will show you a liar. Once Fhurman said he did not, he perjured himself thus opening the door for the whole LAPD is out to get OJ crap.
Having a close family member who was not on one but 2 murder juries, i can say the DA did not sell the family member Beyond Reasonable Doubt until questions were asked by them. If the answer had not been as it was, they would have a hard time going with a guilty verdict.

She did it. She should rot in jail or fry in the electric chair. However, there is one problem. There is no evidence.

I hope they find something down the road to charge her with or somebody takes justice into their own hands. But as far as our legal system, I think it did it worked. Screw throwing people in prison with no evidence.

I still hope the bitch chokes on a chicken bone tomorrow

Bad part is, even if they find new evidence tommorow, they can not retry her for these charges, as that would be double jeopardy. I'm sure she either neglected her child, or outright killed her, but lack of real evidence to show for it like everyone has said. Karma does come back to bite though, just look at OJ. OJ got off the first go round, but a few years later, he goofs up and gets nabbed in sin city. Now he's behind bars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by streetglideok

Bad part is, even if they find new evidence tommorow, they can not retry her for these charges, as that would be double jeopardy. I'm sure she either neglected her child, or outright killed her, but lack of real evidence to show for it like everyone has said. Karma does come back to bite though, just look at OJ. OJ got off the first go round, but a few years later, he goofs up and gets nabbed in sin city. Now he's behind bars.

---

They can't charge her for the same charges but they could file different charges. They just need some real evidence. The best possible senario, would be for the "higher power" to cause a fatal car wreck. The second best senario would be for a female Charlse Bronson vigilante to get involved.

The only way we'll ever know what went down if someone involved gets religion (and a conscience) or does a deathbed confession.

I totally avoided reading about this. I have a real problem with any alleged journalists using first names of people. 'Casey', "'Caylee' and all that as if they're good buds and so are we. Whenever I see that I assume total BS just trying to write something without knowing anything. This story should have been local and ignored by the rest of the country.

Steve

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrufflerSteve

I totally avoided reading about this. I have a real problem with any alleged journalists using first names of people. 'Casey', "'Caylee' and all that as if they're good buds and so are we. Whenever I see that I assume total BS just trying to write something without knowing anything. This story should have been local and ignored by the rest of the country.

Steve

---

Agreed... first time in a while that I really sat down and watched NBC Nightly News Last night and I knew next to nothing about this to begin with- doesn't affect me, thus I don't give a damn. First thought though was "wow, that chick is cute for an accused child killer." I've heard the back and forth and think okay, she was proven not guilty, but still found guilty of providing false information which can carry up to 4 years. If inmates watch the news I'm sure they'll take care of her.