Casey Anthony not guilty, only if she has O.J.'s jury....

So who buried her body?????

What a joke. It's heartbreaking.

Jeff, it's a rarity when you say something silly.
You give us a false dichotomy. It's not the US system or China. There are many, many other options. I will admit to liking juries.

I don't know if I would have convicted Casey of murder. I don't know if I would have convicted her of manslaughter. But I'm beyond a reasonable doubt that she had knowledge of the death of the child and of the attempted cover-up.

I think the only intent that I could buy beyond a reasonable doubt would be negligence.

What bothers me is the love we seem to have of direct witness evidence and the doubt of forensic circumstantial. And I don’t want to dismiss the abuses of forensic evidence (there have been some huge ones, and no doubt there continues to be abuses). But eyewitnesses (who did not know the suspect) along with jail snitches I give little credibility to.

Beyond a reasonable doubt.


To That Jury meant.........."I Didn't Actually See her KILL her child, so she must NOT have done it." :<;


Un- freakin'-believable.


The OJ Jury Lives on.

Jeff, she was charged with criminal child neglect and endangerment.

Our justice system stinks. America was great once, but no longer.

Jeff;

With all due respect circumstantial cases are tried and defendants found guilty all the time. We even have folks convicted of murder with NO body found! For successful prosecution they did not have to have "non-circumstantial" evidence.

In circumstantial cases the need is to consider the totality of the evidence and circumstances presented. Each on their own does not stand. If they did it would NOT be a circumstantial case! You can make the arguement that the prosecution failed to tie all they had together in a coherent way to persuade a jury. But arguing they could present no "non-circumstantial" evidence is not our system either.

As to being a "bad parent" one of the charges was aggravated child abuse. It was an uncontested fact the disapperance went unreported for 31 days. If one accepts the defense then the jury almost was compelled to find guilty on this account. No attempt to report to authorities but also no attempt to summon possible help for the child. When found 911 should have been called and EMS summoned who could determine whether it was hopeless or not. To not do so is one of the very definitions, at least in the State of Florida, to abuse.

they found evidence in Caseys car trunk of a decomposed body. He also found "shockingly high" levels of cloraform and one of Caylee hair from said car trunk showing "post Mortem root banding" which means the child was dead when the hair came out.

I, for one- could not place my child dead or alive in my HOT CAR TRUNK./.. how about you?

So, what's the answer? Star Chamber? Pre-Cog? Professional juries? Sterilization of certain would-be parents? We certainly can't rely on the typical American to make reasoned judgments in the voting booth, supermarket, in TV viewing or, according to most of ya'll here, the jury box.

Fair enough. I'll concede that. And I guess that is what basically happened: The prosecution just didn't have the proof and wasn't able to make its case. (My understanding is that not only could they not prove who killed Caylee, they couldn't even prove how she died in the first place.)

But that's due process for you. It's kind of like free speech... everybody's pretty glad we have free speech until somebody says something they don't like. But that's part and parcel of it.

I, for one, am damn glad we have the right to due process and a trial by a jury of our peers. Maybe not a perfect system, but the best I can think of. Does this mean that sometimes really suspicious and squirrelly people are found not guilty? Yup. And that sometimes even genuinely non-innocent people are found legally "not guilty"? Yup. But it sure beats the alternative, doesn't it?

These 12 jurors sat there in the courtroom day after day. They saw every bit of evidence and every bit of testimony. The heard the opening arguments and closing arguments. They were instructed by experts on the fine and sometimes esoteric points of law that come into play in cases like that.

And us? Well, we watched Star Jones talk about it on the Today Show. And we read some tweets from Ashton Kutcher and Kim Kardashian about it. And we got the tiny snippets of courtroom proceedings that were cherry-picked for the nightly news.

So now we know what the legal verdict should've been and the jury doesn't?

JJ

Ken, I wonder if the cross section of people who vote is very different than a cross section of those who are on a jury?
I'll offer myself as evidence. No defending attorney has ever allowed me to sit for a jury. But I vote in every election.
What percentage of college graduates in science are on a jury versus the percentage that make up those that vote?

Jeff, I agree, jury of peers is important and better than the alternatives. But it's more complicated than just a "jury of peers". We have processes about how the jury is selected.

I am in jury duty standby mode today. Suppose to call the court in a couple hours to see if I need
to attend this afternoon?

I'm in Group 7. They have 9 Groups. That tells me they have a helluva lotta people like me,
just Waiting around........all day. What a waste of time.

Lots of Cons.......... perhaps a few pros, about the Jury system.

But, Do I feel differently about it today? Oh yeah.