Sustained
Justice for Stacy
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2008
- Messages
- 2,739
- Reaction score
- 6,950
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.
In hindsight, I believe the State should have spent some time explaining the difference between circumstantial and direct evidence and that the jury would have to draw inferences or solve the puzzle laid out. They also could have mentioned the lesser charges. Certainly, if CM could bring out his reasonable doubt-o-meter, the State could've cited Scott Petersen's case among others .