Presumption of innocence?
 

I often wonder about these high profile cases about how they can ever get any jurors who will just look at the facts presented to them. The facts are given to them by the different sides' lawyers and guided in how presented by the judge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caylee_Anthony_homicide

Do you think Casey Anthony did kill her daughter Caylee? And, that the prosecution can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yes, I definitely believe she did murder her daughter. Not sure if they can prove it beyond reasonable doubt - I hope they can. I can't believe how all the evidence is released to the public in Florida and how long this is taking to go to trial.

:agree: with mfp

I am constantly amazed at how each move draws the undivided attention of the local media. How can there ever be a "fair" trial in such an environment?

SWR
:beer3:

I was involved with the Criminal Justice system in Pennsylvania. There is no way that the information being released in the Anthony case would ever be made public. The state of Florida must changed their public records law. How can anyone receive a fair trial with all the evidence made public prior to the trial. Also how do they allow all the witness's to be deposed prior to trial? This system is really screwed up!!!!!!

What happened to the presumption of innocents?

Yoda

I think she is probably guilty but I haven't heard enough of the evidence to really know for sure. I also don't think that the media is giving us all the facts -- just the facts slanted to prove her guilt.

Sadly, most cases are tried by the media long before they are tried by a judge and jury. It is next to impossible to get a truly fair trial today. The best an individual and his/her attorneys can hope for is a jury that is willing to listen to everything presented to them before making a final decision. Amazingly, that does happen even today, usually by a hung jury because one or two individuals refused to be influenced by anything but what was presented at the trial.

This case has already been tried in the "court of Nancy Grace".

I agree with you Bare.

I used to watch Nancy Grace...and now, it is the same thing over and over and over again. The same pictures, the same "Bombshell news!!, "Totmom this or that". Repetition of just ranting and raving!!

Still....in the trial of Michael Jackson, Nancy Grace convicted him, but the jury evidently was not under her spell.:pepper2:

Good point. You're always making good points Kayaker!

True, Nancy Grace operates under the "presumed guilty" premise.

Yet I have to confess that her coverage of Caylee's murder has made me believe that Casey is guilty as sin. I definitely could not be an impartial juror.

Yeah... didn't she also find those Duke students guilty?

I do not pay much attention to the "Nancy Grace" on TV as she seems more like a character from some Saturday Night Live skit than a real person. The gung-ho prosecutor who does not seem to pay all that much attention to the facts in any case, just nail 'em Nancy.

I think the question is not DID she kill Kaylee, but did she INTEND to kill her. I believe she tried to drug the baby so she could go out partying and gave the little one too strong a dose. She then commited an additional crime by trying to cover up the original crime.

I agree with you completely.