Originally Posted by
ibyoungr
If LE had DNA evidence that the human decomp was Caylee's they would have already ARRESTED casey for MURDER.
Can anyone her PROVE the car was not driven off the tow yard lot?
My point is about reasonable doubt... jurors are not idiots.. but they can be confused. How else do you explain OJ getting off after they find bloody gloves and clothes yet Scott Peterson gets the clanker with only circumstantial evidence.
In my heart Casey may have killed Caylee... she is a horrible, evil person (proof is in the pdf's of that) However, as an American I have to believe in the presumption of innonence until PROVEN guilty in a court of law. I do not want to lose this fundamental right.
Several previous posters already responded to this in ways that were right in line with my point of view. I want to add just a few things...
I lived in LA during the time of the murder of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman and the subsequent trial of OJ. His getting off even with the evidence that was there is really not an issue of jurors getting confused. You've got to remember that a lot more was going on in that case that does not make it a level comparison to what happened in the Peterson case or this one. The race issue was huge. Jurors even admitted that after the fact. This was one of the first big cases where DNA evidence was used like it was and at that time, it simply was not understood in the way that it is now. It has been a long time since then and even regular, non crime following people seem to understand the strength of DNA evidence. I could add on what has since been noted about the prosecution, the judge, and any other number of things...but Caylee is not about OJ. There is simply not another regular case that I can think of that could truly, logically use that case as a comparison. The only real comparison between that and this is the circus surrounding them.
Remember, you can indeed convict on circumstantial evidence. And, jurors need only find a person guilty beyond a
REASONABLE doubt. I agree that it is in the courtroom where someone will be convicted. However, with what we already know to be fact from the 400 pages, from scientific evidence released, etc. it seems that to say Casey didn't tell anyone Caylee was missing for 31 days (and did so only when forced to by her mother), was out partying during that time, was proven to have lied to numerous people about where she claimed Caylee was during that time, was hanging out at her boyfriends house cooking and cleaning and being fun and outgoing, was stealing from friends, going to get tattoos (all of this while she theoretically was "conducting her own investigation") -- THEN, when LE gets involved, she lies, lies and lies again (yes, this can be proven -- see the 400 pages), and one would also have to assume it reasonable that while nobody else around Casey is missing but Caylee, with decomposition proven to be in her trunk --somebody else got into the car and put in a
different dead body and just happened to pick the car of a mother with a missing child who had not reported her missing -- (wow, big coincidence) and also lied countless times to investigators.
I could add on more and more and more! (Although I don't think I could make that run on sentence any worse!) But again, reasonable doubt. No, we aren't in a court of law and I have no doubt Casey will indeed see her day in court. Even with the very small fraction of LE's case that has been made public, it seems her defense team will have to overcome quite a large amount of evidence -- circumstancial AND otherwise -- to make any juror's doubt be beyond what is reasonsble. JMO