dwccrew;822326 wrote: The defense doesn't have to PROVE anything, they just have to create reasonable doubt, which they obviously did in this case getting the aquittal.

It has to be credible - not remotely, not partially - reasonable. If I nail you to the wall and you say "my abusive father made me do it" with absolutely nothing to establish that as remotely credible, it doesn't cut it. Or maybe a simpler analogy - the DA has your fingerprints, the murder weapon, basically open & shut - but the defense says "no, she wasn't there on that day" it isn't enough. The prosecution has already made it's case, they don't have to prove you weren't there - the defense does, in order to establish reasonable doubt against that the defense will have to prove you couldn't commit the crime because you were somewhere else.

People seem to miss that repeatedly. While the defense doesn't have to prove they didn't do something, they DO have to establish credibility/validity to the explanations and alternatives they propose. The burden beyond a reasonable doubt does not necessitate disproving every ridiculous, out of leftfield excuse proffered by the defense.

gut;822862 wrote:It has to be credible - not remotely, not partially - reasonable. If I nail you to the wall and you say "my abusive father made me do it" with absolutely nothing to establish that as remotely credible, it doesn't cut it. Or maybe a simpler analogy - the DA has your fingerprints, the murder weapon, basically open & shut - but the defense says "no, she wasn't there on that day" it isn't enough. The prosecution has already made it's case, they don't have to prove you weren't there - the defense does, in order to establish reasonable doubt against that the defense will have to prove you couldn't commit the crime because you were somewhere else.

People seem to miss that repeatedly. While the defense doesn't have to prove they didn't do something, they DO have to establish credibility/validity to the explanations and alternatives they propose. The burden beyond a reasonable doubt does not necessitate disproving every ridiculous, out of leftfield excuse proffered by the defense.

well not shit..state the obvious. The difference is the prosecution didnt have jack shit for evidence.

If my wife turns up missing, for the next 30 days I spend my time in Vegas snorting coke off of hookers' rear ends and don't acknowledge her disappearance until confronted with an abandoned car with a horrific stench and then I lie repeatedly to authorities about her whereabouts and her decomposed body just happens to show up in a park a few blocks away, and after a 3 year stint in the city clink my defense is that she drowned in a lake and I panicked and buried her (and spent 30 days snorting coke off of hookers' rear ends) - my guess is the good commonwealth is firing up old Sparky and few people would question "how" she died or demand to know the exact details of her death.

gut;822835 wrote:Again....REASONABLE doubt. If she had nothing to do with any of this, there's no reason to lie to police, much less wait 30 days to report the girl missing. If you think she did something, even accidentally, that's manslaughter. Why is the car abandoned in the first place? These are things the defense really did absolutely nothing to offer an explanation, while the prosecution's is quite sound...but reasonable people have reasonable doubt?

Yeah, I'm really about over it. My gut was that the prosecution didn't prove what they needed to based on the fact that I wasn't convinced - and I really didn't need convincing. I was right - the jury overwhelmingly found the prosecution's case lacking.

I don't know that I'll respond any more because there's really nothing more to say. The prosecution's case was not quite sound. You say, well if something happened then it has to be at least manslaughter. No, the prosecution has to tell you enough to make you sure it was either murder or manslaughter, not "I don't know what happened so let's make sure she gets something." None of the things that you point out above are related to the event - whatever it was - that caused the child's death. You are focused on what she did after the fact, just like the prosecution and your best argument is "why would she do that?" If you keep asking questions, the only thing you keep proving is that you don't know what the hell happened. And you fail to convict.

gut;822862 wrote:It has to be credible - not remotely, not partially - reasonable. If I nail you to the wall and you say "my abusive father made me do it" with absolutely nothing to establish that as remotely credible, it doesn't cut it. Or maybe a simpler analogy - the DA has your fingerprints, the murder weapon, basically open & shut - but the defense says "no, she wasn't there on that day" it isn't enough. The prosecution has already made it's case, they don't have to prove you weren't there - the defense does, in order to establish reasonable doubt against that the defense will have to prove you couldn't commit the crime because you were somewhere else.

People seem to miss that repeatedly. While the defense doesn't have to prove they didn't do something, they DO have to establish credibility/validity to the explanations and alternatives they propose. The burden beyond a reasonable doubt does not necessitate disproving every ridiculous, out of leftfield excuse proffered by the defense.

And in this case, they didn't have to prove Casey was or wasn't anywhere. Because the prosecution didn't have a crime scene. They had a body dump and the DNA present there was not the defendant's. So where do they propose Casey was when the child died that she has to disprove? The prosecution couldn't say how the child was killed. What alternative does the defense have to come up with when there is no fact to dispute?

Forget about what the defense said. I don't believe the girl drowned. But I don't know if the child was murdered or died by an accident for which her mother is responsible. You/I/They don't know where she died, how she died, who she was with, what could've been done to prevent it......NOTHING except a child was dead. That will never ever convict anyone.

I don't think "exact" details are necessary, but if you're not going to prove the elements of the crime, it doesn't amount to murder.

Here are some other legal experts' explanations (cherry picked from a few different articles) for those of you who pick a point here and there, take it as the gospel because you wanted a guilty verdict and don't understand how/why it played out in court the way it did (bolded some of the points that I've specifically mentioned here):

The prosecutors committed a cardinal sin: They overcharged and they paid the price. The defense went to the jury with a much more plausible story -- that Caylee died accidentally and Anthony's cover-up spun out of control. It's not a story that reflects well at all on Anthony as a human being or a mother -- but not one that calls out for execution either.

The government failed to establish how 2-year-old Caylee Anthony died and they couldn't find her mother's DNA on the duct tape they said was used to suffocate her.

There was conflicting testimony on whether the putrid smell inside the family's car was a decomposing body or simply trash, and it was never quite clear why chloroform was so important.

"Even the state acknowledged they weren't exactly sure of how Caylee was killed. That was a candid acknowledgement, but Baez seized on that."

And prosecutors didn't have any evidence that put Casey at the scene where the remains were found.

There was also confusion on why chloroform was so important. Chloroform is a chemical compound that can be used to knock someone unconscious and also is found in human decomposition, but prosecutors never made clear exactly what its role it played in Caylee's death.

Then there was the smell test. After prosecutors presented an expert witness who said that a carpet stain taken from the family's car trunk had a smell consistent with a decomposing body, the defense called the expert's former colleague who testified to the opposite.

"The issue is there was absolutely no evidence linking her to the death. None," said the Miami lawyer.

"The defense went to the jury with a much more plausible story -- that Caylee died accidentally and Anthony's cover-up spun out of control."

Who is the legal genius that came up with that? If the accidental death was such a more plausible story, why the $^#%$&$%%*##!*$& does she spend 3 years in jail? Whoever wrote that isn't a legal expert by any means.

I Wear Pants;822139 wrote:Casey Anthony? Meet Dexter Morgan...

Underrated post.

Manhattan Buckeye;822934 wrote:Whoever wrote that isn't a legal expert by any means.

I believe Jeffrey Toobin wrote that.

Manhattan Buckeye;822934 wrote:If the accidental death was such a more plausible story, why the $^#%$&$%%*##!*$& does she spend 3 years in jail?

Because she's crazy and thought covering it up would be a better idea than admitting her baby died on her watch, even if accidentally?

People don't always do logical things, especially stupid/crazy people. Syaing "most people wouldnt act that way," doesn't get someone the death penalty when there's no other evidence.

2kool4skool;822940 wrote:I believe Jeffrey Toobin wrote that.

Not exactly the most credible source, although better than Nancy Grace or Wendy Murphy.

The "accidental death" idea is crazier than the prosecution's case, it doesn't make any sense at all. The idea that an accidental death was much more plausible is just plain stupid.

Manhattan Buckeye;822934 wrote:"The defense went to the jury with a much more plausible story -- that Caylee died accidentally and Anthony's cover-up spun out of control."

Who is the legal genius that came up with that? If the accidental death was such a more plausible story, why the $^#%$&$%%*##!*$& does she spend 3 years in jail? Whoever wrote that isn't a legal expert by any means.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/07/06/toobin.anthony.dsk/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

I don't know who he is, but he seems to have a pretty good track record (I had to wiki him):

Jeffrey Toobin is a senior legal analyst for CNN and a staff writer at The New Yorker magazine, where he covers legal affairs.
magna cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School
became the first television legal analyst in 1994, at ABC
In 1994, Toobin broke the story in The New Yorker that the O. J. Simpson legal team planned on accusing Mark Furhman of planting evidence and playing "the race card."[5] In 2003, he secured the first interview with Martha Stewart in regards to the charges against her for insider trading.
Toobin has provided broadcast legal analysis on many high profile cases, including Michael Jackson, the O.J. Simpson civil trial and the Starr investigation of President Clinton. He received a 2000 Emmy Award for his coverage of the Elián González custody saga.
Toobin's latest book, The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court, has received awards from the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism and the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University.[

"I don't know who he is, but he seems to have a pretty good track record (I had to wiki him):"

Yeah, he was on Harvard Law Review, like another famous American (not to take this to the politics board). He's Nancy Grace with better academic credentials, but enough about Toobin, let's discuss the statement, how is an accidental death a more plausible story.

Look up CCRunner's post from a page or so back, it is more on point than a "Harvard Law Review" legal expert.

Ccrunner or a Harvard Magna cum laude graduate? Sweet Jesus....

SportsAndLady;822983 wrote:Ccrunner or a Harvard Magna cum laude graduate? Sweet Jesus....

Again not to take this to the politics board, but how are things working out for us with Harvard Law graduates in charge?

Casey Anthony knew Caylie was dead...Does anyone really dispute that, don't her action and lies demonstrate that? Ok, Caylie drowned in an accident...So "reasonable doubt" is that Caylie panicked and tried to cover it up. When has that ever happened before for that to be a remotely plausible explanation? Little green aliens could have done it, too...at least some people believe they've actually seen little green aliens, which actually makes it slightly more plausible.

That was essentially the defense....Ignore the duck tape...Ignore the chloroform...Ignore the lies...Ignore it defies all rational logic and that has never happened before, the girl drowned and Casey Anthony just panicked and tried to cover it up. Yeah, that's really a compelling argument - but it's the one you must accept if you believe the prosecution didn't prove their case.

I mean, I thought it was a critical error for the defense to go that route, basically eliminating any chance to consider kidnapping or someone else. What of her actions and behavior give any indication of someone in panic? So she tried to cover it up, but rather than sell it looking day and night she's out in a hot body contest? That's not a reasonable argument. They may as well have said Caylie committed suicide and did all that herself because it's honestly about as plausible and believable.

Manhattan Buckeye;823001 wrote:Again not to take this to the politics board, but how are things working out for us with Harvard Law graduates in charge?

Its ccrunner...

Im more of the notion that Im not sure who killed the kid, mom or grandpa.

gut;823012 wrote: That was essentially the defense....Ignore the duck tape (that didn't have the defendant's DNA on it)...Ignore the chloroform (of which trace amounts appear in decomposing bodies anyways)...Ignore the lies (because she was a pathological liar before her daughter ever went missing, so she clearly had a history of being a liar anyways)...Ignore it defies all rational logic and that has never happened before (except that Casey Anthony has constantly defied logic with her lies, etc), the girl drowned and Casey Anthony just panicked and tried to cover it up. Yeah, that's really a compelling argument - but it's the one you must accept if you believe the prosecution didn't prove their case.

We get it. Some of you guys don't buy the case. If you had been on the jury, you could have tried to convince everyone else otherwise. But all 12 jurors (and the one alternate that has come forward with his opinion) agreed that the case the prosecution presented was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And they did so in a relatively short amount of time. So they were pretty well convinced that there was some other explanation.

gut;823012 wrote:Casey Anthony knew Caylie was dead...Does anyone really dispute that, don't her action and lies demonstrate that? Ok, Caylie drowned in an accident...So "reasonable doubt" is that Caylie panicked and tried to cover it up. When has that ever happened before for that to be a remotely plausible explanation? Little green aliens could have done it, too...at least some people believe they've actually seen little green aliens, which actually makes it slightly more plausible.

That was essentially the defense....Ignore the duck tape...Ignore the chloroform...Ignore the lies...Ignore it defies all rational logic and that has never happened before, the girl drowned and Casey Anthony just panicked and tried to cover it up. Yeah, that's really a compelling argument - but it's the one you must accept if you believe the prosecution didn't prove their case.

1. The lies weren't ignored, as she was convicted on those counts.
2. It isn't difficult at all to disbelieve the drowning story but also realize that the prosecution presented absolutely no concrete, conclusive evidence that a) it WAS a murder (since cause of death wasn't determined) and b) Casey Anthony was the murderer.

The simple fact that cause of death was never established would be enough reasonable doubt for me personally to acquit on a murder charge. It's basically saying "the medical examiner can't prove it was murder, but take our word for it". That isn't how the legal system works.

Look. They probably didnt even need to PROVE WHO killed Caylie. But they couldnt even prove how she died. That is huge. That makes the drowning a very plausible explanation. If they can rule out drowning somehow, or prove suffocation, or anything Casey is on death row imo. Not being able to rule out accidental death killed the prosecutions case. Nothing more really mattered. If you cant prove how someone died, how can you prove who did it and if it was on purpose?

Laley23;823116 wrote:Look. They probably didnt even need to PROVE WHO killed Caylie. But they couldnt even prove how she died. That is huge. That makes the drowning a very plausible explanation. If they can rule out drowning somehow, or prove suffocation, or anything Casey is on death row imo. Not being able to rule out accidental death killed the prosecutions case. Nothing more really mattered. If you cant prove how someone died, how can you prove who did it and if it was on purpose?

end thread. Bunch of hillbillies arguing in circles.

All I know is she has been locked up for about 3 yrs with no male companionship, when she gets out, someone is going to be hitting that ass 24/7 for about a month.

American prisons are full of individuals incarcerated on circumstantial evidence alone. Some sitting on death row. with similar evidence as presented in this trial. Reasonable doubt can be eliminated with circumstantial evidence alone. Circumstantial evidence will always allow for some level of doubt. Is the doubt reasonable? That is up to the jurors. It varies between juries. Obviously the legal teams have a lot to do with it as well.

ccrunner609;823126 wrote:looks like they shouldnt of took this case to court until they actually came up with something. What they should of done was let her go and keep an eye on her...she would of gave up the truth eventually.

I said this earlier. She would have hung herself with a little rope.

Laley23;823116 wrote:But they couldnt even prove how she died. That is huge.

I did not see this as huge. Badly decomposed bodies don't always lend much as to the cause of death. Convictions are made without a known cause of death more than you would think. For example Scott Peterson. Sitting on death row in California. Convicted on similar circumstantial evidence and no proven cause of death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Peterson