‘If the jury was wrong, those who saw all the evidence and disagreed had a right to insult the jury.”
What evidence? The only real evidence presented was that the little girl died. Were you in the courtroom? Did you see anything except what was on TV?
As for OJ type hyperbole. When are you folks gonna start rioting like happened after Rodney King. I mean if you really cared about Justice you’d be out there in the streets.
My opinion is correct because its the jury’s opinion. For better or worse that is how our system works. They declared her not guilty. Move on or forget any notion about the rule of law.
That statement tells me everything I need to know about you.
OJ is innocent.
Abortion is found in the Constitution.
Governments have a right to take land from a citizen on behalf of a private developer.
Gays have a right to marry.
Arizona's immigration law is unconstitutional.
All of these have been found to be true by a court somewhere, so they must be correct, because they were the jury's opinion or the court's opinion. Thanks for setting me straight on this. I thought that sometimes people made mistakes in their judgment and that we had a right to question their judgment in those situations. I realize now (thanks to your brilliance) that the court is ALWAYS right.
I have resisted weighing in on this topic, but I just can't help myself any longer! I have not seen a concise listing of evidence in this case. I am going to try to do so now, and ask others to add more, correct errors, or add detail. Many have said the case was circumstantial. There was however, both forensic and eyewitness evidence.
A website giving the definition of circumstantial evidence states the following:
“Books, movies, and television often perpetuate the belief that circumstantial evidence may not be used to convict a criminal of a crime. But this view is incorrect. In many cases, circumstantial evidence is the only evidence linking an accused to a crime; direct evidence may simply not exist.”
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Circumstantial+Evidence
With that in mind here goes:
1. Casey Anthony was shown to have executed internet searches for topics including chloroform and neck breaking that were evidence of premeditation.
2. Testimony indicated that Casey Anthony was the last person known to have seen Calyee Anthony alive on June 16, 2008.
3. Testimony stated that Casey Anthony borrowed a shovel on June 18, 2008 and returned it to the neighbor one hour later.
4. Casey's father testified that he detected a smell of a decaying body coming from Casey Anthony's trunk on July 15, 2008.
5. Later that same day, Casey told her mother that Caylee has been missing for a month and that the babysitter kidnapped her. The woman she named as the babysitter had no connection to the child.
6. Police testified that Caylee led them to where she said she last say her daughter. It turned out to be a vacant apartment.
7. Caylee’s body was found not far from the Anthony home with duct tape over her mouth, evidence that she was deliberately killed and did not die a as a result of an accident.
8. The duct tape and plastic bag found with Caylee’s body were consistent with those found at Casey Anthony's home.
9. State's expert testifies that high levels of chloroform were found in the trunk of Casey Anthony's car. The defense does not dispute this finding, but instead suggest that it was present due to chlorine from a pool transferred via a bathing suit.
10. The FBI expert testified that a hair found in the trunk likely came from a dead body due to post mortem banding at the root of the hair.
Like the OJ case, I do not believe there was a single bit of evidence offered of some other person killing this child. Instead, small doubts were planted in the jurors’ minds of the validity of the evidence. It is hard to accept, however, that all the evidence offered was incorrect, and using Occam’s razor, the jury should have LEAST found her guilt on the lesser charges of aggravated child abuse and aggravated manslaughter of a child.