These are all questions that couldn't be answered by the evidence presented. The LACK of evidence is what aquitted Casey and nothing else. People (not necessarily you) need to understand this. There's a lynch mob mentality for this woman now, and she very WELL may NOT have actually killed that child!
Well said.
Speaking of lynch mob mentality, the comment page below the article on CNN of Casey being acquitted was disturbing.
Oh, I make a habit of never reading the comment section of
any news article, they're always filled with morons spewing hate as loud and fast as they can. It's true anonymity, because so few people are "regulars" like someone here can be, so there's no reputation to be concerned about.
I have gotten 2 letters to do jury duty. But I had my hearing audi write a letter saying I was too HOH to do jury duty. I was not used for this reason. If I was not HOH I would had to gone !
There's a difference between being selected for jury duty and being empaneled on a jury. Anyone and everyone can be selected for jury duty, but if you prove yourself to be biased, prejudiced or even simply appear to be disagreeable to either side, then you'll not be selected during the jure dire process.
Egads!!! I know!!! ALL the comment pages are just going nuts with this.
Nothin' like a murder to get the righteous anger juices flowing.
She has Jedi powers. That little hand wave in direction of the jury before they read the verdict ....
Yes, she is guilty. All this case proved was there was not enough evidence to convict her.
How convenient.
Innocent until proven guilty, though. And she was not proven guilty. That's how the american judicial system works. If you want something where every case is a guilty verdict, go take a look at Japan's judicial system, where defense lawyers are considered geniuses if they have 10% success rates, and many prosecutors have 100% guilty verdict rates.
She is a selfish ugly bitch.
Your misogyny is showing again.
Nor do we know beyond a reasonable doubt exactly how she died. For all I know, she could have drowned in the pool at their home or parent's home (I dunno which home had the pool) or if her father came to visit mother and child, she could have died at his hands. Or maybe it was the mother. Or maybe her BF did it. Perhaps Casey tried to protect whoever killed Caylee from prison time or it could be the parents covering for their daughter.
The real question is whether that's a
reasonable doubt or not. I didn't see the evidence presented, so it's rather hard to say either way.
If Casey was the last person with Caylee, then who does she say took Caylee from her?
She doesn't have to prove her innocence, the prosecution has to prove her guilt, though.
