Through a Juror's Eyes/What do those who haven't followed the case believe? (Merged)

[Chewy]

As one of the "newbies;" A beautiful little girl, born into an evidently extremely dysfunctional family, died under strange and unknown circumstances. The actions/reactions of her family members after her death are even more strange.

After all these weeks, the case still appears circumstantial to me. The opening statements of both the defense and persecution are a non-issue to me; they're not evidence. Based on the evidence, while having a personal opinion as to what MAY have occurred, I wouldn't be able to give a guilty verdict.

I think you are confused about reasonable doubt. The idea here isn't that we need to figure out the "strange and unknown circumstances" in order to find guilty, but simply to assign guilt to the one who caused it to happen. And it is quite clearly Casey Anthony. If others were involved that doesn't mean she's innocent.

You don't have to prove that she did it, just that it is reasonable to assume that she is guilty. Like Scott Peterson, she seems to think if they can't prove cause of death it means they can't prove that she did it.

I think it's clear that she did it even if we don't know how. Who else is guilty then?

 

[MasonJunior]

<<<PS I think Judge Perry is adorable too!>>>

Search Judge Perry's bio. Inspiring info about his father.

 

[JBean]

bumped for the nurse

 

[nursebeeme]

thank you JBean!