Casey Anthony confusion about defense team

[Cupcake143]

Ok, so it’s pretty obvious to almost everyone that Casey Anthony murdered her little baby, but the jurors and some others still agree that because there is no proof she shouldn’t be convicted.But, what I am confused about is how the defense team claimed that Caylee accidentally drowned in the pool – I don’t believe this, but even if it were true , what is the reason for the duct tape and chloroform?? The defense said that whoever found Caylee’s body did this to her and/or placed her body in the woods. However, if she did accidentally drown in the pool and was dead wouldn’t they had put her in a casket and had a funeral for her? It doesn’t make sense at all, and I don’t get how ANY of these jurors don’t see through Casey’s lies. Sorry, but I still think about this and the precious baby who’s life was taken away so fast

 

[JimG]

In order to find her guilty, the jury would have to be convinced of her guilt by the evidence presented. And they would have to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt as to each and every element of the crime.

The defense does not have to prove anything at all. The prosecution has to prove the charges. (And they need to present the evidence in such a way as to make the conclusion of guilt inevitable.)

I didn’t sit through the trial or receive the jury instructions, so I wouldn’t presume to second guess the decision. Of course, I did have the benefit of seeing numerous opinions and sound bites repeated thousands of times on cable TV, and the jury did not.

 

[michelleds]

and to add to Jim’s excellent response, the defense team is trying to cast reasonable doubt on the prosecution’s case. while claiming aliens abducted and killed the child would probably NOT create reasonable doubt, the theory that she drowned in a pool could. the defense is not required to prove their theories and can even present diametrically opposed theories.

 

[marbles_the_cat]

My understanding is that, it is not that the jury believed her; it is that there was not enough proof for a first degree murder charge. The burden of proof for a charge like that is huge; and “beyond a reasonable doubt” is a pretty high standard. Of course it is obvious she was lying… but there was doubt cast on the prosecution’s side. Perhaps if they had pursued a lesser charge…

Ler us also remember to pray for those involved!

 

[nicolep]

Here’s the biggest problem (IMHO) about the entire case - the prosecution couldn’t prove the child was murdered. If murder can’t be proven, someone can’t be charged with murder. The prosecution also couldn’t put Casey Anthony at the scene where the child’s body was found. Lies don’t send people to jail for murder.

 

[smichhertz]

There’s no doubt she’s lying and that the defense’s story doesn’t hold. However, there wasn’t substantial direct evidence linking her to the murder, hence why she walked.

The latest news is that Orange County is investigating witness tampering claims, so who knows? This might just be the beginning.

 

[JimG]

Having served on a few juries myself, I have found that prosecutors sometimes engage in a scattershot approach and fail to lay out the evidence in a straightforward convincing manner in their summary. Going into the jury room, people will say things like “Is that it?” “That’s all there is?” In one case it was clear to me that the defendant was guilty but the jurors were unimpressed with the evidence. At that point it was essentially up to me to lay out things in a straightforward manner, which was not all hard to do. The prosecutor just did not do it.