majorspark;823196 wrote: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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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?

I Wear Pants;823287 wrote:Which should be unacceptable in cases where there is only circumstantial evidence IMO.

I Wear Pants;823291 wrote:I don't think it's the education that's causing the problems. It's the people. ****ty people who are smart/educated are still ****s. But that doesn't mean we should start looking for less educated folks. Harvard is Harvard for a reason.

2kool4skool;823289 wrote:Agreed, let's try a gym teacher for our next President.

majorspark;823299 wrote:I am for more and very stringent rules governing death penalty cases. What types of crimes, what types of evidence can be submitted, etc.. You and I would agree on this in principal maybe not all the details.

Manhattan Buckeye;823305 wrote:Yes, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. HLS is all about providing credentials and an alumni network. There is nothing educational about law school, including HLS. It is a time when students can practice philosophy with other students and professors and develop a professional network, but in reality there is no education. The vast majority of law school classes are absolutely worthless, heck I took Corporations from a Yale law grad (Kevin Kordana, who I think is a pretty nice guy, then again I got an A in his class) that barely practiced a day in his life. What the heck does he know about an earnout, or a non-compete, or any other business related issue? Nothing. He never spoke to a client, never did anything other than bloviating about how the law should be. That described 95% of my classes.

ccrunner609;823313 wrote:I would touch more boys.

dwccrew;823288 wrote:I don't think lying to police necessarily means she committed murder. If the prosecutions cas was so sound, why couldn't they get the conviction? All 12 jurors were not convinced. You can't tell me that all 12 jurors got it wrong..

"If you're going to charge someone with murder, don't you have to know how they killed someone or why they might have killed someone, or have something where, when, why, how? Those are important questions. They were not answered,"

"They didn't show us how Caylee died. They didn't show us a motive. I'm sorry people feel that way.

"I just swear to God … I wish we had more evidence to put her away. I truly do … But it wasn't there,"

Manhattan Buckeye;823430 wrote:""If you're going to charge someone with murder, don't you have to know how they killed someone"

Again what do they want? A bow-wrapped youtube video of the killing with a receipt from the store where the murder weapon was purchased?

sherm03;823431 wrote:How about an expert on that stand that says, "the cause of death was suffocation caused by the duct tape placed over the nose and mouth."

Instead, they got, "chloroform killed this child. No wait, it was duct tape. Well, maybe she used the chloroform first, then the duct tape. Yes, the same duct tape that her dad has access to. Yes, that duct tape that didn't have any of the defendant's DNA on it. No, nobody else could have used it. Just her."

Manhattan Buckeye;823450 wrote:From what I just read she got the maximum for lying to the authorities, a very rare situation (four years, really? For lying). Apparently there is judicial remorse about the matter.

FatHobbit;823458 wrote:I read that she got four one year sentences to be served concurrently.

enigmaax;823459 wrote:Consecutively.

enigmaax;823459 wrote:Consecutively.

Con_Alma;823462 wrote:How much has she already served?

ccrunner609;823477 wrote:I hope they beat the **** out of her in jail