Did the jury get it wrong, or...

[Thinker Belle]

This post deserves much more than just a "thanks". This post nails it right on the head! Someone needs to forward this post to the Pinnellas 12, every member of the defense and prosecution team, the judge and every single talking head out there today!

Thank you!

:rocker::rocker::rocker::rocker:

Thank you

 

[manatee]

Circumstantial evidence is evidence in which an inference is required to connect it to a conclusion of fact. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or the intervening inference. It is the nature of circumstantial evidence for more than one explanation to still be possible. Inference from one piece of circumstantial evidence may not guarantee accuracy. Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a collection, so that the pieces then become corroborating evidence. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more valid as proof of a fact when the alternative explanations have been ruled out.<<SOURCE: TRANS-LEX.ORG LAW RESEARCH
Example: If someone was charged with theft of money and was then seen in a shopping spree purchasing expensive items, the shopping spree might be circumstantial evidence of the individual's guilt. If the person denies the shopping spree and attempts to cover up everything purchased, that is further circumstantial evidence. If the person claims someone else purchased the items and hid them in her closet when the items are discovered, that is even more circumstantial evidence.
Or if a person claims that a family member is missing when in actuality they are deceased, the cover up is circumstantial evidence of the individual's guilt.


The most important piece of circumstantial evidence in the Casey Anthony case was her BEHAVIOR around the time of the offense. There was a MOUNTAIN of circumstantial evidence.

1. When a person uncharacteristically disappears for a MONTH after the disappearance of her child, that is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

2. When she makes up a story about a FAKE NANNY kidnapping their child at the time her child is missing, that is tremendous CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

3. When she LIES to the POLICE about why her daughter is missing, that is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.When a person lies to friends and family, claiming their child is ALIVE when they are actually DEAD, that is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

4. When the words "how to make chloroform" was searched on her computer numerous times and traces of it are found in her trunk, which also smells of human decomposition, that is EVIDENCE.

5. When the "missing" child ends up in a bag in the woods 6 months later, that is EVIDENCE.

6. When duct tape is found near the face of a dead child, that is EVIDENCE.

7. When the defendant is seen at Blockbuster happily renting videos the evening that her child went missing and/or died, that is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

8. When the defendant is out dancing after her baby disappears or dies, that is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

9. When a person appears happy or even "giddy" after the offense, that is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

10. When a person does not appear SAD when their child is missing or dead, that is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

11. When a person gets a tattoo that says "Beautiful Life" a few days after their child supposedly "accidentally drowned" that is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

12. When numerous experts, along with cadaver dogs, testify to the smell of human decomposition being in her trunk, that is EVIDENCE.

13. When numerous experts state that the components found in her trunk are consistent with human decomposition, that is EVIDENCE. When that same car has been ABANDONED by the defendant, that is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

14. When a hair from Caylee's head is found in the trunk with indication of human decomposition, that is EVIDENCE.

15. When a mother tells people that she spoke to her DEAD child a month after she died....circumstantial evidence doesn't get much stronger than that. A mother could never claim she spoke to her dead child if she was not covering up her own contribution to her death. It goes against the laws of motherhood and loving a child. Most mothers had rather stay in prison for the rest of their lives rather than utter those words.

The reason why Casey went free is because the jurors were IGNORANT of the LAW. Jennifer Ford is the perfect example of how it happened. She thinks you have to know CAUSE of death in order to convict someone. She thinks there was more evidence that there was a drowning although there was ZERO evidence of a drowning. There was ZERO circumstantial evidence of a drowning. She thinks you have to know HOW someone died in order to convict them. Not all murders have a bullet Ms Ford. Does ANYONE know how Laci Peterson died? No. Yet Scott Peterson still got First Degree Murder and was put on death row. For a very good reason. The jury followed the law and looked at the circumstantial evidence and came to the determination through logic and reasoning that Scott Peterson more than likely is the person who killed his wife. This means they had no REASONABLE DOUBT that anyone else killed her.

People are too busy watching CSI to understand how most murder cases are determined. IT IS THROUGH CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. Just like in the Scott Peterson case. He got the death penalty with MUCH less circumstantial evidence than there was against Casey Anthony. For centuries we have been convicting murderers before forensics even existed. Forensics are quite often not there. Life is not a TV show.

Anyone complaining about people being upset that Casey Anthony went free, if they want to say that there was no evidence against Casey Anthony and that the jury did the right thing....then maybe they should campaigning for Scott Peterson's release from prison because obviously they believe he was wrongly accused.

Awesome post! and this writer agrees with you:
http://www.newsmax.com/RonaldKessle...Anthony-GretaVanSusteren/2011/07/13/id/403503

Many commentators have said we must respect the findings of the jury and not second guess their decision. That is pure baloney. If we are to maintain our system of laws, we should respect the jury system. It is far better than carrying out lynchings in banana republics. But as demonstrated when juries convict people who are later exonerated by DNA evidence, juries are far from perfect. We have no obligation to pretend that they are by saying we respect their verdict however mindless it may be.

In the Casey Anthony case, the jury failed at its job, and a murderer went free.

Read more on Newsmax.com: Casey Anthony Jurors Discarded Common Sense
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

 

[Lovejac]

Circumstantial evidence is evidence in which an inference is required to connect it to a conclusion of fact. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or the intervening inference. It is the nature of circumstantial evidence for more than one explanation to still be possible. Inference from one piece of circumstantial evidence may not guarantee accuracy. Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a collection, so that the pieces then become corroborating evidence. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more valid as proof of a fact when the alternative explanations have been ruled out.<<SOURCE: TRANS-LEX.ORG LAW RESEARCH
Example: If someone was charged with theft of money and was then seen in a shopping spree purchasing expensive items, the shopping spree might be circumstantial evidence of the individual's guilt. If the person denies the shopping spree and attempts to cover up everything purchased, that is further circumstantial evidence. If the person claims someone else purchased the items and hid them in her closet when the items are discovered, that is even more circumstantial evidence.
Or if a person claims that a family member is missing when in actuality they are deceased, the cover up is circumstantial evidence of the individual's guilt.


The most important piece of circumstantial evidence in the Casey Anthony case was her BEHAVIOR around the time of the offense. There was a MOUNTAIN of circumstantial evidence.

1. When a person uncharacteristically disappears for a MONTH after the disappearance of her child, that is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

2. When she makes up a story about a FAKE NANNY kidnapping their child at the time her child is missing, that is tremendous CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

3. When she LIES to the POLICE about why her daughter is missing, that is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.When a person lies to friends and family, claiming their child is ALIVE when they are actually DEAD, that is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

4. When the words "how to make chloroform" was searched on her computer numerous times and traces of it are found in her trunk, which also smells of human decomposition, that is EVIDENCE.

5. When the "missing" child ends up in a bag in the woods 6 months later, that is EVIDENCE.

6. When duct tape is found near the face of a dead child, that is EVIDENCE.

7. When the defendant is seen at Blockbuster happily renting videos the evening that her child went missing and/or died, that is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

8. When the defendant is out dancing after her baby disappears or dies, that is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

9. When a person appears happy or even "giddy" after the offense, that is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

10. When a person does not appear SAD when their child is missing or dead, that is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

11. When a person gets a tattoo that says "Beautiful Life" a few days after their child supposedly "accidentally drowned" that is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

12. When numerous experts, along with cadaver dogs, testify to the smell of human decomposition being in her trunk, that is EVIDENCE.

13. When numerous experts state that the components found in her trunk are consistent with human decomposition, that is EVIDENCE. When that same car has been ABANDONED by the defendant, that is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

14. When a hair from Caylee's head is found in the trunk with indication of human decomposition, that is EVIDENCE.

15. When a mother tells people that she spoke to her DEAD child a month after she died....circumstantial evidence doesn't get much stronger than that. A mother could never claim she spoke to her dead child if she was not covering up her own contribution to her death. It goes against the laws of motherhood and loving a child. Most mothers had rather stay in prison for the rest of their lives rather than utter those words.

The reason why Casey went free is because the jurors were IGNORANT of the LAW. Jennifer Ford is the perfect example of how it happened. She thinks you have to know CAUSE of death in order to convict someone. She thinks there was more evidence that there was a drowning although there was ZERO evidence of a drowning. There was ZERO circumstantial evidence of a drowning. She thinks you have to know HOW someone died in order to convict them. Not all murders have a bullet Ms Ford. Does ANYONE know how Laci Peterson died? No. Yet Scott Peterson still got First Degree Murder and was put on death row. For a very good reason. The jury followed the law and looked at the circumstantial evidence and came to the determination through logic and reasoning that Scott Peterson more than likely is the person who killed his wife. This means they had no REASONABLE DOUBT that anyone else killed her.

People are too busy watching CSI to understand how most murder cases are determined. IT IS THROUGH CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. Just like in the Scott Peterson case. He got the death penalty with MUCH less circumstantial evidence than there was against Casey Anthony. For centuries we have been convicting murderers before forensics even existed. Forensics are quite often not there. Life is not a TV show.

Anyone complaining about people being upset that Casey Anthony went free, if they want to say that there was no evidence against Casey Anthony and that the jury did the right thing....then maybe they should campaigning for Scott Peterson's release from prison because obviously they believe he was wrongly accused.

If I could make your post my siggy line, I would.

:rocker::rocker::rocker::rocker::rocker::rocker:

 

[Solange82200]

Circumstantial evidence is evidence in which an inference is required to connect it to a conclusion of fact. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or the intervening inference. It is the nature of circumstantial evidence for more than one explanation to still be possible. Inference from one piece of circumstantial evidence may not guarantee accuracy. Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a collection, so that the pieces then become corroborating evidence. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more valid as proof of a fact when the alternative explanations have been ruled out.<<SOURCE: TRANS-LEX.ORG LAW RESEARCH

Awesome post (although snipped in the interest of saving space)!

One more piece of circumstantial evidence, the defendant HERSELF texted her friend complaining about the odor of death, claiming it was two dead squirrels that crawled in her hood), 15 minutes before dumping the car next to a DUMPSTER!!!!

 

[JBean]

Circumstantial evidence is evidence in which an inference is required to connect it to a conclusion of fact. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly&#8212;i.e., without need for any additional evidence or the intervening inference. It is the nature of circumstantial evidence for more than one explanation to still be possible. Inference from one piece of circumstantial evidence may not guarantee accuracy. Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a collection, so that the pieces then become corroborating evidence. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more valid as proof of a fact when the alternative explanations have been ruled out.<<SOURCE: TRANS-LEX.ORG LAW RESEARCH
snipped for space.

Even though there was zero direct evidence in this case , but to have a case built 100% on circumstantial case can be equally as strong, if not stronger than a case that has direct evidence.

 

[Thinker Belle]

Even though there was zero direct evidence in this case , but to have a case built 100% on circumstantial case can be equally as strong, if not stronger than a case that has direct evidence.

ITA.. Vincent Bugliosi (Manson murders prosecutor) wrote a wonderful book entitled "Till Death Do Us Part" in the late 70s. In it, his explanation of and use of circumstantial evidence was brilliant. NO DOUBT this case would have been COMPLETELY different had the jury understood the weight of circumstantial evidence and that you CAN convict based on circumstantial evidence.
ICA's behavior was ENTIRELY consistent with guilt.
The jurors seemed very much to be hung up on the lack of direct evidence, such as DNA at the crime scene. The lack of DNA is only proof that the killer wore gloves or the elements destroyed any physical evidence.

MOO

 

[3doglady]

ITA.. Vincent Bugliosi (Manson murders prosecutor) wrote a wonderful book entitled "Till Death Do Us Part" in the late 70s. In it, his explanation of and use of circumstantial evidence was brilliant. NO DOUBT this case would have been COMPLETELY different had the jury understood the weight of circumstantial evidence and that you CAN convict based on circumstantial evidence.
ICA's behavior was ENTIRELY consistent with guilt.
The jurors seemed very much to be hung up on the lack of direct evidence, such as DNA at the crime scene. The lack of DNA is only proof that the killer wore gloves or the elements destroyed any physical evidence.

MOO

BBM I agree. Then the foreman thought KC was ng because he was hung up on GA being involved because he can "read people". :waitasec:

 

[Caligram]

Somehow the women in the jury believed that ICA was too young and frail to be a murderer. Poor thing....look how miserable she was, tugging at her clothes to make them fit nicely. Her sleeves were always too long, and she was too short to have to sit at that big table among all those huge lawyers. And, look how she struggled to keep from crying when they showed those awful pictures of that baby's bare bones. She was trying so hard to stay composed, and one time she broke down and they had to stop the trial for the rest of the day.
Now, the men on the jury, well they saw ICA quite differently from the women. They could tell she was a wild feisty thing, and just look at how she defiantly pulled those tops tight around her bosom. She wasn't afraid, and that simply proves she didn't kill that child. Hot dang! Not guilty.
IMO the jury did not do what they had been entrusted to do. This jury failed, and there is no justice for Caylee Marie.

 

[Leah0107]

Brilliant Thinker Belle - This is the whole point! It wasn't explained to the jury the weight that circumstantial evidence has. It wasn't in the juror instructions and for these reasons I believe that they looked at direct evidence only.

borrowing a shovel from your neighbor 3 days after daughter is last seen.

 

[Leah0107]

Another good article regarding circumstantial vs. direct evidence

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judge-h-lee-sarokin/casey-anthony-jury_b_898550.html

 

[magic-cat]

Brilliant Thinker Belle - This is the whole point! It wasn't explained to the jury the weight that circumstantial evidence has. It wasn't in the juror instructions and for these reasons I believe that they looked at direct evidence only.

borrowing a shovel from your neighbor 3 days after daughter is last seen.

So our next question should be why wasn't it in the instructions? Why was the jury not instructed about the weight of circumstantial evidence? How could such a mistake have been allowed to happen so that she would be let loose when she is guilty as guilty comes?:banghead:

 

[Leah0107]

Agreed magic - especially because the majority of the state's evidence was circumstantial. It's absolutely mind blowing.

 

[Leah0107]

Additionally, and don't hate me... if the jury wasn't given those instructions how much can they really be blamed for following what was put in front of them with the instructions. Personally, I believed strongly in the circumstantial evidence that was presented. I wrestled over many things. But the CE was so strong that it convinced me of her guilt. I wonder if I was in their shoes with 20 something pages of jury instructions with NOTHING mentioned about circumstantial evidence, what conclusion I would have come to. I'd like to believe I would have been the one blowing the horn and asking the judge questions and wanting to review evidence, etc., but would I have in those circumstances? It's all just so horrible and it's why we are still reeling about it.

 

[JBean]

ITA.. Vincent Bugliosi (Manson murders prosecutor) wrote a wonderful book entitled "Till Death Do Us Part" in the late 70s. In it, his explanation of and use of circumstantial evidence was brilliant. NO DOUBT this case would have been COMPLETELY different had the jury understood the weight of circumstantial evidence and that you CAN convict based on circumstantial evidence.
ICA's behavior was ENTIRELY consistent with guilt.
The jurors seemed very much to be hung up on the lack of direct evidence, such as DNA at the crime scene. The lack of DNA is only proof that the killer wore gloves or the elements destroyed any physical evidence.

MOO

DNA is still only circumstantial evidence, not direct.
Direct evidence is an eyewitness or a video or something like that of the perpetrator actually committing the crime. Even at that, eye witness accounts are highly unreliable. Courts rely on circumstantial evidence such as fingerprints, dna, and behavior every single day.

as always jmho.

 

[JBean]

Additionally, and don't hate me... if the jury wasn't given those instructions how much can they really be blamed for following what was put in front of them with the instructions. Personally, I believed strongly in the circumstantial evidence that was presented. I wrestled over many things. But the CE was so strong that it convinced me of her guilt. I wonder if I was in their shoes with 20 something pages of jury instructions with NOTHING mentioned about circumstantial evidence, what conclusion I would have come to. I'd like to believe I would have been the one blowing the horn and asking the judge questions and wanting to review evidence, etc., but would I have in those circumstances? It's all just so horrible and it's why we are still reeling about it.

Every time I showed up just for voir dire, the judge made it perfectly, crystal clear what circumstantial evidence was and would we be able to convict on it.

 

[JBean]

Brilliant Thinker Belle - This is the whole point! It wasn't explained to the jury the weight that circumstantial evidence has. It wasn't in the juror instructions and for these reasons I believe that they looked at direct evidence only.

borrowing a shovel from your neighbor 3 days after daughter is last seen.

well that could be the problem as there wasn't any direct evidence LOL. There was nothing to look at so no wonder they came up with an NG!

 

[Skully]

Circumstantial evidence is evidence in which an inference is required to connect it to a conclusion of fact. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or the intervening inference. It is the nature of circumstantial evidence for more than one explanation to still be possible. Inference from one piece of circumstantial evidence may not guarantee accuracy. Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a collection, so that the pieces then become corroborating evidence. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more valid as proof of a fact when the alternative explanations have been ruled out.<<SOURCE: TRANS-LEX.ORG LAW RESEARCH
Example: If someone was charged with theft of money and was then seen in a shopping spree purchasing expensive items, the shopping spree might be circumstantial evidence of the individual's guilt. If the person denies the shopping spree and attempts to cover up everything purchased, that is further circumstantial evidence. If the person claims someone else purchased the items and hid them in her closet when the items are discovered, that is even more circumstantial evidence.
Or if a person claims that a family member is missing when in actuality they are deceased, the cover up is circumstantial evidence of the individual's guilt.


The most important piece of circumstantial evidence in the Casey Anthony case was her BEHAVIOR around the time of the offense. There was a MOUNTAIN of circumstantial evidence.

1. When a person uncharacteristically disappears for a MONTH after the disappearance of her child, that is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

2. When she makes up a story about a FAKE NANNY kidnapping their child at the time her child is missing, that is tremendous CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

3. When she LIES to the POLICE about why her daughter is missing, that is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.When a person lies to friends and family, claiming their child is ALIVE when they are actually DEAD, that is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

4. When the words "how to make chloroform" was searched on her computer numerous times and traces of it are found in her trunk, which also smells of human decomposition, that is EVIDENCE.

5. When the "missing" child ends up in a bag in the woods 6 months later, that is EVIDENCE.

6. When duct tape is found near the face of a dead child, that is EVIDENCE.

7. When the defendant is seen at Blockbuster happily renting videos the evening that her child went missing and/or died, that is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

8. When the defendant is out dancing after her baby disappears or dies, that is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

9. When a person appears happy or even "giddy" after the offense, that is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

10. When a person does not appear SAD when their child is missing or dead, that is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

11. When a person gets a tattoo that says "Beautiful Life" a few days after their child supposedly "accidentally drowned" that is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

12. When numerous experts, along with cadaver dogs, testify to the smell of human decomposition being in her trunk, that is EVIDENCE.

13. When numerous experts state that the components found in her trunk are consistent with human decomposition, that is EVIDENCE. When that same car has been ABANDONED by the defendant, that is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

14. When a hair from Caylee's head is found in the trunk with indication of human decomposition, that is EVIDENCE.

15. When a mother tells people that she spoke to her DEAD child a month after she died....circumstantial evidence doesn't get much stronger than that. A mother could never claim she spoke to her dead child if she was not covering up her own contribution to her death. It goes against the laws of motherhood and loving a child. Most mothers had rather stay in prison for the rest of their lives rather than utter those words.

The reason why Casey went free is because the jurors were IGNORANT of the LAW. Jennifer Ford is the perfect example of how it happened. She thinks you have to know CAUSE of death in order to convict someone. She thinks there was more evidence that there was a drowning although there was ZERO evidence of a drowning. There was ZERO circumstantial evidence of a drowning. She thinks you have to know HOW someone died in order to convict them. Not all murders have a bullet Ms Ford. Does ANYONE know how Laci Peterson died? No. Yet Scott Peterson still got First Degree Murder and was put on death row. For a very good reason. The jury followed the law and looked at the circumstantial evidence and came to the determination through logic and reasoning that Scott Peterson more than likely is the person who killed his wife. This means they had no REASONABLE DOUBT that anyone else killed her.

People are too busy watching CSI to understand how most murder cases are determined. IT IS THROUGH CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. Just like in the Scott Peterson case. He got the death penalty with MUCH less circumstantial evidence than there was against Casey Anthony. For centuries we have been convicting murderers before forensics even existed. Forensics are quite often not there. Life is not a TV show.

Anyone complaining about people being upset that Casey Anthony went free, if they want to say that there was no evidence against Casey Anthony and that the jury did the right thing....then maybe they should campaigning for Scott Peterson's release from prison because obviously they believe he was wrongly accused.

I wish this was a Bill Board in FL

 

[kline]

Now the jury foreman talked to Greta and says that since the prosecution didnt have the cause of death, the law required them to acquit her of all charges.

That is patently untrue. He is trying to convince people that they had no choice, and he is either lying or really stupid. I think everyone here knows you do not need an exact cause of death to convict of murder. I am mad that when jurors say completely untrue things, none of the reporters point it out. Why not?????? Greta was a lawyer right, she should know that is false. The interview hasnt aired yet, it airs tonight, but I have a feeling she will not call him out on it. The more I hear, the sicker I get.

A murder case should require people of at least average or above average intelligence. There has to be a way. How can we trust something as important as a human life (Casey's, and the one of her next murder victim) to people who don't understand the law? It was explained to them clearly, but let's face it, some people don;t have the capacity to learn, no matter how much it is explained to them.

You hit it exactly,I think anymore jurrors are convinced that unless the prosecution can hand over a piece off cellular DNA and the CODIS file that popped up with it and a CSI Las Vegas slomotion re-enactment they havent proven their case.Even in these forums ive heard Casey's extremely guilty behavior after Caylee's death blown off as 'circumstantial evidence' not worthy of consideration,or if someone does consider it were somehow not being fair to poor Casey as if expecting her to answer for it is untrue to the spirit of our 'Justice System'.

 

[Nenato5]

I would like to see "Mr. Foreman" asked how he feels now hearing that making George the villain was caused by a jury consultant monitoring the social media and deciding that he was the least liked of all of the players. A proper question for him IMHO since he constantly says George was a big part of the decisions and #11 seems to have led the other jurors to the verdict.

 

[WillChgo]

So our next question should be why wasn't it in the instructions? Why was the jury not instructed about the weight of circumstantial evidence? How could such a mistake have been allowed to happen so that she would be let loose when she is guilty as guilty comes?:banghead:

As much as I believe the prosecution proved their case, their biggest mistake was not to explain to the jurors in closing statements how to evaluate circumstantial evidence, both behavioral and forensic.

I read in another thread that Florida law does not require (I don't know if it allows it or not) an explanation of the meaning of circumstantial evidence.

In this case, contrary to the prior post, ALL the evidence for Casey 's guilt or innocence on murder, manslaughter, and child neglect was circumstantial. Some of the circumstantial evidence was based on forensics (duct tape, decomposing body in the trunk, search for chloroform) and some behavioral.

For example, the placement of the duct tape is not direct evidence that Casey killed Caylee with duct tape, But circumstantial.

There was direct evidence that Casey lied to LE, both eyewitness and recordings.

The jury ignored all the behavioral evidence on Casey's guilt. They also did not seriously examine the forensic evidence but went along with Baez' false assertion that since there were conflicting opinions by expert, that by itself constitutes reasonable doubt.