I agree. The ones who do not have their own shows and do not need ratings were not shocked by the verdict. They were SHOCKED at all the TH "attorneys" reactions.
This guy doesn't need ratings and writes an excellent summary of why the verdict was wrong.
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArtic...the_Casey_Anthony_trial&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1
IMO, the prosecution expected the jury to make "assumptions" in their favor instead of providing evidence. If you followed the case prior to trial, you could make those assumtpions in favor of the State. However, if you were only looking at the evidence presented at trial, the defendant is presumed innocent. So any assumptions would have to be in the defendant's favor. If they had the evidence to show they assumptions should be made in their favor, they would have presented it.
The prosecution expected the jury to make inferences, not assumptions. Inferences are required by the jury when you have a circumstantial case.
IMO, there was plenty of evidence from which inferences could have been made.
IMO, especially in this case. I was taught that you ask the question yourself when it can hurt you. Not only to keep the other side from scoring points but it makes it look like you are trying to hide something from the jury. This prosecution over and over did not ask the questions that did not have the answers they wanted. Many times it was the most obvious question.
I would need an example here ... not sure of what questions the State should have asked and did not.
IMO, LDB made a HUGE error in her closing. LDB used Casey's own words to show the car had an odor. However, she did more than that. She used the entire statement as evidence. Casey said her Dad must have hit an animal when he borrowed the car. LDB was asking the jury to believe Casey on the smell but not that her Dad borrowed the car. However, LDB NEVER stated in her closing that Casey lied about George borrowing the car. LDB just assumed the jury would figure that out for themselves.
Didn't GA/CA testify that they were not driving the Sunfire between 6/16/08 and 6/27/08 ? It was definitely stated by both in their depositions, which were introduced as evidence. If the jury had reviewed all of the evidence, they would seen this ...
IMO, when LDB made that statement, I started thinking wow if the jury did not find George credible, LDB just put the car in his hands prior to being impounded.
See previous points ...
IMO, the State was so sure of Casey's guilt that they made rookie mistakes. Rookie attorneys fail to even consider the other sides case. To put on a strong case, you have to look at it with an opposing view. Literally try to make the case for the other side to see the holes in your case. The State was too arogant to even consider that the jury may not see their case the way they wanted them too.
The only rookie mistake the State made was in jury selection. And I like to think of the State as confident, not arrogant. Just because the jury didn't see it the correct way doesn't make the State's case weak.