Thread: Casey Anthony

So she got away with murder, sad. I am a forensic scientist, DNA consultant, and Forensic DNA Expert Witness and I think it is ....

the correct decision for the jury.


How can I say that?

The jury has to decide solely on the evidence presented in court whether or not the state proved what they were alleging, and they did not. Was she guilty, yes, we all know that she was, did they prove it, no.

mmiller@forensicdnaexperts.com
www.forensicdnaexperts.com

i agree

I disagree. Beyond reasonable doubt does not mean metaphysical certitude. Any doubt there may be is not reasonable, in my opinion.

actually, i think that she should of been found guilty, and thatthe jury will benifit from there dicision sometime in the future. thats my opinion thuogh.

I have seen juries convict on far less. The certainly was ample circumstantial evidence to convict. Often times guilt or innocence is decided at jury selection. In this case they were looking for a smoking gun, and in this case there was not one. At the end of the day we have the best legal system in the world, is it perfect no, but it's the best way to hadle things. Personally I don't see any other rational explanation for the facts, and I have no doubt that she did it, but we were all privvy to far more information than the jury was. It is hard to see or understand, but having been at many trials I can tell you that some people are just not believable in person. The State did not prove their case to the jury, end of story. Sad but true.