I guess I can say the same illogical thinking.
There isn't any evidence of the duck tape being over Caylee's face and mouth. It was found in the hair mass, laying on the side where the skull was. One of the three pieces was found 8 to 10 feet away, yet it was always said three pieces over the mouth and nose. There was only speculation by the procecution. Sure there was plently of testimony of the duck tape being on the face,nose mouth but it wasn't proven. The medical examiner said the caue of death was homicide/murder because of the duck tape, but when asked if Caylee could have been drowned, she had to say yes because she knew you couldn't prove the duck tape was on the face, nose and mouth.
Maybe you (and many others) could have found someone guilty with this evidence and be ok knowing that there is a great possibility of a death sentance being applied, but not me. Not in a million years. I don't think that I am that brave because I have a higher judge that knows the truth and I sure wouldn't want to speculate and get it wrong and have to answer for that one. JMOO
BBM
Thank you for posting this, because although I am about to disagree with you, i think this is just about how the jury saw their decision. And why I am really glad some jurors gave interviews. I was/am quite curious about their reasoning
When i was younger, in my 20s, I sat on my first jury in a criminal case. I sat there and waited for the state to prove it to me. I realized though, that there was no direct evidence, only circumstantial, and that just wasn't good enough for me. I was looking for an easier decision. (I would up an alternate, btw, so it didn't affect the outcome).
Reflecting on that exeprience, I realized we were supposed to work on the circumstantial evidence to determine if there were any other reasonable explanations. I don't think this jusry did that.
It is hard, it is supposed to be hard, and juries are expected to try and connect the dots and test reasonability. It takes courage, maturity, and intellect.
In other words, "Without direct evidence, I don't want to judge" is a cop-out that doesn't serve the country well, IMO, imo, imo. You are supposed to judge. It is your job on a jury. It is a hard, serious, and important job in our society. People who are looking for only easy answers aren't doing their job.
Again, nothing personal nor any anger here: I just disagree and have felt strongly about this for a long time, not just since the Anthony trial.
FWIW, I thought the State in this case, and many prosecutors in other cases, forget that juries need to be talked with about circumstantial evidence weight and reasonable doubt. That is why my heart sank when Mason presented that chart without a response from the state. I feared they were sunk.
Thanks for the soapbox opportunity!