re: #9 lawhawk

The burden of proof is the same in all those individual counts; beyond a reasonable doubt. The lies to the police about the existence of the nanny that didn’t exist were provable and that’s where the jury convicted.

They simply didn’t find the rest of the prosecutor’s case sufficiently convincing.

Maybe the DNA evidence was sufficient for conviction with a different jury makeup or not. We’ll never know about that.

Clearly, this jury didn’t find the evidence sufficient for the murder convictions and all the yapping by talking heads doesn’t matter. The only thing that mattered was what evidence was seen by the jury - not what some lip-reader on Nancy Grace thinks Anthony said (for example). The jury wasn’t considering that or anything other than what was entered as testimony and evidence.

Last night, the media talking-heads were talking about how the media had over-saturated the trial. Good for a few hours of filler. How’s that for a bucket of irony.

Who cares about the media saturation anyway. You can always flip the channel. The jury isn’t effected by any of it. They’re sequestered. They don’t know what we see, nor do they hear the analysis.

I know it’s a different jury and a different state and different lawyers, but it’s hard to get my head around a guilty Scott Petersen and a not-guilty Casey Anthony.