So what have we learned?

[AmericanDream]

Blame everyone
Lie to the cops
Throw in the child abuse card
Hide the body in a swamp
Leave no evidence
Keep cheese in the trunk



that is all.

Yep, just as simple as that. disgusting.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

All the jurors are speaking now. They said they knew she did it but the state didn't prove it. That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. If the prosecutions case convinced the jury to the point that they knew she did it then they met the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt." I know she did it but the state didn't prove it. Well, if the state didn't prove it how is it that YOU know it?

I think you are confused about what "reasonable doubt" means. Reasonable doubt means that a reasonable person would conclude that the evidence says that she killed her daughter, and no other explanation is reasonably possible. I did not follow the case closely, but the prosecution totally lost me when they brought in an expert that invented a brand new device to detect gasses from decomposing bodies. If the only evidence they had that the girl was even in the trunk of the car was chloroform and gasoline traces they did not have any evidence, especially when you consider that the cheese in the trunk could have thrown off the chloroform.

Can you conclude form the evidence that the girl did not accidentally drown and Casey just hid the body? If not, it is not murder, nor is it manslaughter. I wouldn't even call it felony child abuse. That means the state blew it.

By your own admission you didn't watch the trial. The state produced two men from an FBI lab and their expertise was forensics. they both testified that the levels of chloroform were unusually, the highest they had ever seen. Secondly they found a hair that matched Caylee's and it was a post mortem hair. The state did prove their case. Otherwise the jurors wouldn't be running around yelling "I know she did it."

You are right, I didn't watch the trial, but I do know about this part of the testimony because it came up on some tech blogs I do follow.

The FBI agents had never seen lower higher, or lower, levels of chloroform because they had never seen the machine that was used for the tests before this case. That must have come out at some point during the trial, because I read about how stupid it was for the prosecutor to bring in completely new, untested, technology to produce the results. They developed a theory, and tried to stuff the facts into it. That is bad lawyering.

To be honest, I am still surprised it didn't work, juries usually like that type of stuff.

 

[MaggieMae]

I think you are confused about what "reasonable doubt" means. Reasonable doubt means that a reasonable person would conclude that the evidence says that she killed her daughter, and no other explanation is reasonably possible. I did not follow the case closely, but the prosecution totally lost me when they brought in an expert that invented a brand new device to detect gasses from decomposing bodies. If the only evidence they had that the girl was even in the trunk of the car was chloroform and gasoline traces they did not have any evidence, especially when you consider that the cheese in the trunk could have thrown off the chloroform.

Can you conclude form the evidence that the girl did not accidentally drown and Casey just hid the body? If not, it is not murder, nor is it manslaughter. I wouldn't even call it felony child abuse. That means the state blew it.

By your own admission you didn't watch the trial. The state produced two men from an FBI lab and their expertise was forensics. they both testified that the levels of chloroform were unusually, the highest they had ever seen. Secondly they found a hair that matched Caylee's and it was a post mortem hair. The state did prove their case. Otherwise the jurors wouldn't be running around yelling "I know she did it."

You are right, I didn't watch the trial, but I do know about this part of the testimony because it came up on some tech blogs I do follow.

The FBI agents had never seen lower higher, or lower, levels of chloroform because they had never seen the machine that was used for the tests before this case. That must have come out at some point during the trial, because I read about how stupid it was for the prosecutor to bring in completely new, untested, technology to produce the results. They developed a theory, and tried to stuff the facts into it. That is bad lawyering.

To be honest, I am still surprised it didn't work, juries usually like that type of stuff.

As I recall, the forensics reports actually concluded "trace amounts" of chloroform, but the media all went with some "expert's" conclusion at the outset that there were "shocking" amounts of chloroform discovered in the car trunk.

Another ludicrious new technology the prosecutors tried to use as proof was the smell-in-the-can result. Seriously? Where can I buy canned farts? I've got a few relatives on my list I'm always at a loss what to give for birthday greetings.

 

[theHawk]

Blame everyone
Lie to the cops
Throw in the child abuse card
Hide the body in a swamp
Leave no evidence
Keep cheese in the trunk



that is all.

We've learned our Justice system has been made into a joke thanks to liberals.