Casey Anthony Trial

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Women in particular are all fired up about this, and while I understand I think the right decision was made. There was just no evidence that directly tied her to the death of her daughter, it was all circumstantial at best. There's no doubt to me she had some sort of involvement, to what extent we'll probably never know.

In the "CSI" America, it's seems to be assumed that, if there isn't a forensic smoking gun, you have "reasonable doubt". To me, that's just an excuse to abdicate making a decision. People were found guilty before fingerprint tracing and DNA evidence was around.

I haven't been following the case but, if there was strong circumstantial evidence, that, IMHO, should have been enough to convict.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

In the "CSI" America, it's seems to be assumed that, if there isn't a forensic smoking gun, you have "reasonable doubt". To me, that's just an excuse to abdicate making a decision. People were found guilty before fingerprint tracing and DNA evidence was around.

I haven't been following the case but, if there was strong circumstantial evidence, that, IMHO, should have been enough to convict.

Well again, there wasn't any strong evidence that tied her directly to the crime, at least none that I've heard about.

People want to relate this to the OJ trial, but I think there was much stronger evidence against OJ than there was in this case.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

In the "CSI" America, it's seems to be assumed that, if there isn't a forensic smoking gun, you have "reasonable doubt". To me, that's just an excuse to abdicate making a decision. People were found guilty before fingerprint tracing and DNA evidence was around.

I haven't been following the case but, if there was strong circumstantial evidence, that, IMHO, should have been enough to convict.

The whole case was basically "that seems like she's guilty" or "that doesn't mae any sense." They didn't really have anything. They couldn't even really piece together a feasible timeline.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

The whole case was basically "that seems like she's guilty" or "that doesn't mae any sense." They didn't really have anything. They couldn't even really piece together a feasible timeline.

Again, what I have read has been probably just the highlights and I can see how "it seems like she's guilty" may have been the best case. When you only hear the cliff note highlights, you certainly miss out on the holes that are evident when hearing the whole presentation.

At the same time, the failure to notify and lies about the cover story along with the chloroform and decomposed remains in the abandoned car seemed pretty damning to me. Not a perfect case obviously - that's why all the drama - but a different jury maybe convicts on that.

[budw38]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Again, what I have read has been probably just the highlights and I can see how "it seems like she's guilty" may have been the best case. When you only hear the cliff note highlights, you certainly miss out on the holes that are evident when hearing the whole presentation.

At the same time, the failure to notify and lies about the cover story along with the chloroform and decomposed remains in the abandoned car seemed pretty damning to me. Not a perfect case obviously - that's why all the drama - but a different jury maybe convicts on that.

I agree with you , searches on chloroform , finding the cloroform in the trunk , smell of a decomposed body , never reporting her own little girl missing , and the endless lies ( the nanny ) , sure as hell make her look very guilty . Drowning my ass . R.I.P. Caley .