Originally Posted by GAC
But the jurors did hear from the defense this scenario of the possibility this little girl died in a tragic accident. And while the Judge did not allow that to go further, because of a lack of evidence to support it, the "damage" was already done because the defense succeeded in being able to "inject" that into the minds (thinking) of the jurors to promote "reasonable doubt". And when one juror was interviewed she even publicly stated that was the reason she voted the way she did.
Yes, the burden of proof should be on the state. But in the same sense I think too much leeway is given to the defense to throw out various "theories", knowing there is no evidence to support it, but simply because all they have to do is plant that "seed" somehow of reasonable doubt to influence a jury.
I have my "problems" with jury trials. Not advocating another system, but only that I have my problems with it.
I didn't follow this trial that much. But was the defense ever questioned as to WHY Anthony didn't report the child missing for a month, and lied to investigators about her whereabouts? IMO, that's pretty damning evidence.
Since she didn't take the stand all we can go on are opening statements (which by definition are not facts) where her attorney said it was due to her being sexually abused as a kid. She learned to lie and make things up. She also had huge fears imbedded in her from that abuse making her afraid to come forward