In this case I am telling the PAINFUL TRUTH about the jury in the Casey Anthony case. The jury shirked their responsibility. Period.
A circumstantial case is about the circumstances surrounding the case. This jury clearly did not understand the dynamics of evaluating circumstances and coming to a conclusion. In the Scott Peterson case there was also no "exact" answer. For a killer, the value of lying to the police is that the hard evidence gets decomposed or destroyed. That makes the job of a juror a little harder: they have to think their way through the case.
In the Scott Peterson case the jury got it right. It would have been an involution of all logic to believe that he did ot kill her. Most of us can do basic algebra and solve for X. You don't have proof of what the answser is...you have to figure it out by using deductive reasoning.
Deduction is REAL and it is the responsibility of the jury to TAKE their responsibility and step up and make the hard decisions. You can't say on the one hand, "I was convinced she was guilty", then turn around and render a decision saying, "There wasn't enough evidence."
If you were convinced she was guilty...then you have put 2 and 2 together and lo and behold! it has made four.
If every case depended on the EXACT evidence, no one would ever get convicted for anything. I am a middle class, white grandmother, and I truly believe that a minority man or woman in the same situation would have been convicted. If Casey was fat; she would have been convicted. If she was unattractive; she would have been convicted.
In my opinion, these jurors have sentenced themselves to along life of regret. They will soon wake up to the reality that they were lacking in moral courage, and it will sting. The State of Florida does not get another chance to try this case, while someone found guilty can have almost unlimited appeals.
Caylee gets no appeal.
Should any of those jurors ever fall victim to a crime, I hope they get better than what Caylee got.
