Replies

You’re misreading the decision reached by the jury. Just because they vote to acquit doesn’t mean they gave credence to the defense’s claims. It merely means they rejected the prosecution for inadequate proof. They could all think the defense was full of irrelevant $h1+ but it wouldn’t matter. It’s only what the prosecution does and does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that matters. The doubt need not be caused by the defense’s claim; there need merely be a reasonable hole in the theory or evidence presented by the prosecution. The jury found one.

A bit of REALITY here. The state presented the evidence, WHO had the custody of that child WHEN she went missing by Casey's own words. THAT was never challenged or given any 'reasonable' doubt. From that point forward who knows what is considered 'reasonable' doubt.

“A bit of REALITY here. The state presented the evidence, WHO had the custody of that child WHEN she went missing by Casey’s own words. THAT was never challenged or given any ‘reasonable’ doubt. From that point forward who knows what is considered ‘reasonable’ doubt”

Ok so let’s illustrate something then:

You and I are in a room with say 20 other people. Everyone else is across the room. You and I are over in a corner. Power goes out. Whole room turns dark. When the lights are back on you are over across the room with the rest of the group and I lay dead on the floor from a cause unknown. Does that mean, with no reasonable doubt- 95-99% certainty- that you killed me? Nope. Could have been natural causes. Could have been someone else. Could have been a whole host of things.

Applying this to the Anthony case- the mere fact she was in custody of Caylee when she went missing is hardly enough. And the duck tape and bag could just as easily be explained as efforts to hide her dead body after someone else killed her or after she had an accidental death. As far as I am concerned Casey probably did kill her but there’s not nearly enough in just the evidence presented to prove it.