[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

I have no doubt in my mind that Casey killed Caylee, whether on purpose, in a rage, by neglect, on drugs, drunk or otherwise.

But the evidence must be followed and the evidence must be presented in a court of law. And that evidence must prove beyond a reasonable doubt not just that Caylee died, not just that her death was a result of an action of another, but that Casey herself was directly responsible for Caylee’s death.

We “know” she was, but the evidence must “prove” she was. The prosecutor overreached, and in doing so he rolled the dice that the jury would side with him and fill in the blanks without him providing evidence.

It was a rickety bridge he constructed and the jury felt that it didn’t hold up when he tried to drive his charges across.

[ZX12R]

I have no doubt in my mind that Casey killed Caylee, whether on purpose, in a rage, by neglect, on drugs, drunk or otherwise.

You just said you have no doubt. The jury had an even lower standard. They only had to find that there was no reasonable doubt, in order to convict.

[RightFighter]

So what you’re saying is that you would never convict purely on circumstancial evidence, right? You would always require either an eyewitness or a recording of the crime so that you could be sure?