[cuban leaf]

I was certain Casey Anthony would be convicted and defense atty was way over-matched.

---

People here are concerned here about the jury and tend to use the Anthony and Simpson trials as their proof that they should be. Yet in both cases the jury erred in needing more burden of proof on the prosecution satisfied and found “obviously guilty” defendents innocent.

And now we use that as a proof argument that this jury is going to do the exact opposite?

Lets be honest, the defense in this case is far tighter than those two and there simply is NO prosecution case. I think the one commenter on one blog summed it up when she said, and I paraphrase, “normally the prosecution brings its case and the defense tries to poke holes in it, but in this case, even the prosecution’s case has been the defenses case and the prosecution is trying to poke holes in it - even with their own witnesses.

That is way below the bar the prosecution must meet to get past “reasonable doubt”. Saying “well, it COULD HAVE happened such and such a way” is how you try to gain reasonable doubt, not remove it.

This trial is a farce. I’ve seen nothing like it, ever.

[bkepley]

>And now we use that as a proof argument that this jury is going to do the exact opposite?

Nope. That’s kind of a straw-man. All I’m saying is that I’ve been wrong before. Oh and about the OJ thing, even though many were saying that OJ was dead meat I thought the prosecutors were terrible and was not suprised at the verdict.

[Nervous Tick]

>> in both cases the jury erred in needing more burden of proof on the prosecution satisfied and found “obviously guilty” defendents innocent.

Good point.