[truthkeeper]

We are a society of lazy, spoon-fed, unread, narcissists. The only evidence that needed to be offered was that Caylee was dead; her mother was the last person seen with her; her mother repeatedly lied to family and friends regarding Caylee’s whereabouts after she died; after she died and before anybody else knew she was missing, her mother partied day and night.

Asking for more “evidence” reveals a lack of common sense. There is no reasonable explanation for Casey’s behavior except that she killed her daughter. Any arguments to the contrary require that you suspend common sense. “Reasonable doubt” does not require that jurors leave their common sense outside of the jury room.

I've read thousands of posts in the last 24 hours but yours says it best.
All I can add is AMEN.

[LibertyJihad]

As a prosecutor, I used to remind every jury that “reasonable doubt” does not require that common sense be left outside the jury room. The defense attorneys hated my repititon of the phrase, but it was necessary because the defense constantly tried to imply that “reasonable doubt” required every detail of a crime be fully revealed.

For example, the defense would hammer home the fact that one witness said the defendant was driving a green car and another witness said it was a blue car - thus, we have “reasonable doubt”. Of course, the color of the car had nothing to do with the fact that the car was used to run over an ex-spouse.

In this case, the remaining questions or doubts surround issues that do not pertain to the elements of the crime. For example, how exactly did Casey kill her daughter ... what time did the murder occur ... what good reason did Casey have to kill her daughter. These questions were smoke and mirrors used by the defense to cloud the normal judgement of jurors. Unfortunately, these jurors were easily fooled.