(bolded/underlined by me)
Hi tomkat. No disrespect was intended from my previous post.
I share your frustration with things like this. It is a tragedy, absolutely. And yes, imo, the whole world is going to hellinahandbasket, for sure. I also happen to agree with you 100% that justice was NOT served in that case, so you'll get no argument from me here on the points you made above.
Honestly, I wasn't trying to grab a tomkat by the tail or lecture you at all in the other post. I was expressing the facts over why a lot of people seem confused about how the jury in that case was unable to come to any conclusion of guilt simply based on the fact that they had no idea HOW or WHEN or WHERE the child died.
(The following is not specifically addressing you, so don't feel it's another lecture. I'm just typing what crosses my mind, but not to anyone in particular.)
The jury was not required to know, but without knowing HOW/WHEN/WHERE she died, they couldn't move forward with deciding if the defendant was guilty on the charges that had to do with the death of the child. The wording of the criteria they must use to determine guilt on each crime required the jury to be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of killing the child, but when several jurors explained their thought process, they explained that they could not convict because no matter what they thought, they had to be able to match their verdict with the criteria required for THAT crime. They could not match a guilty verdict with the criteria required for any crime that involved the death of the child because in order to do so, they had to be sure CASEY ANTHONY was responsible. They needed more info. They didn't know how. They didn't know when. They didn't know where. If they had gone with a guilty verdict on Murder in the First, they would have to have been able to justify that from the evidence and know what it was that convinced them that Casey Anthony was responsible for murder, child abuse, etc. They had NO IDEA because nothing was proven to them.
The crimes that the defendant was accused of were unable to be pinned on her because when they sat down in that jury room and went over each charge and went down the list of what they had to know (beyond a reasonable doubt) in order to go with that charge, they quickly realized that their hands were tied. The jurors felt confused, as well. Why? Well, mainly because most people don't realize that a juror can't sit down with a pre-conceived notion and just run with that to convict someone. There are rules for the jury to follow and criteria to be met to justify what they decide.
See, that's the stuff Nancy Grace won't tell ya. She's just there to entertain, not educate.
