[roseylovestosho]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

I heard some speculation that because of all the crime dramas and absolute genius forensic evidence on them, jurors may be expecting more and more evidence, especially DNA evidence, so while advances in science have helped us convict many a suspect, now jurors may be expecting too much evidence, and not really understand what a “reasonable” doubt is.

Sad to say, the guy flipping the bird at trial got in more trouble than Casey, they say she may be out as soon as Thursday. By the way, at the end of the trial, prosecutor had a chance to allow the judge to decide, the verdict, Baez was willing to do away with the jury, and the prosecutor said he wanted to use the jury, I wonder if he’s rethinking this?

I agree with this statement. I've been debating people all over facebook all day. Everyone keeps crying about the lack of DNA evidence and I had to reference them to an article explaining that less than 1% of criminal trials nowadays uses DNA evidence. Regardless of whether there was evidence or motive behind Caylee's murder linking Casey Anthony there is one thing that was a no brainer and that was aggravated child abuse/neglect. Not only did she NOT report her child missing for 31 days but it was her mother that reported it and NOT HER! She didn't even cooperate with the police given that she kept giving the wrong information! How can you convict someone of lying to the police regarding the whereabouts of your child and NOT be charged with child abuse if it LED to the endangerment (DEATH) of your daughter?!