Read my post 654. Then go back and read my statement.
Using my theory on Caylee’s death, how could I turn ‘probably’ into ‘this is what happened’ to convince a jury?
By focusing on the family dynamics and the life in the Anthony household in the years before her death as much as I focused on Casey’s actions after June 16th. Not absurd at all. It is about presenting the case in a way to take ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ off of the table.
None of this is about what we think or what we know. It is what was presented in the courtroom.
I am certain she is guilty. But I also know public opinion has no place on a jury.
‘beyond reasonable doubt’
No, this incompetent jury..and mightily lazy..made their job easy and took the burden off of themselves by misinterpreting the “reasonalble doubt” standard to “beyond any shadow of doubt”.
Otherwise, they would have reviewed testimony and other evidence due to the obvious actions of Casey. Deceased fiber hair in her car, stench in her car, googling chloroform, breaking neck and “punching in kidney”...
In addition her failure to call the police when her lie of “the girl was missing” was used. The duct tape from her house used and found on the girl to suffocate her. Her failure to cooperate and lie to police.
...With that as a backdrop, they found no reason to review key evidence.
Bullshit...they were morons and lazy.