I wonder.

I don't believe they proved her guilty of murder. I think it is quite possible that the death was accidental, that she might have played some part in the death and that all of her lies were merely attempts to distance herself from that death. Guilty of hiding the body? Clearly. Guilty of perjury? She didn't testify. Perjury is lying under oath. Guilty of lying to the police? Obviously. She was convicted of that.

Guilty of being a totally despicable person? Clearly.

Well George we are almost gonna agree on one here. :)

When the prosecution gave their closing argument, I heard a very strong case.

And when the defense gave their closing argument, it almost put me to sleep, but I was able to see the problem.

We have a defendant who appears to be sociopathic, dishonest, and intelligent enough to weave an impressive web of lies. And we have a dead child that the defendant seemed to be relieved was dead. But, for all we know, that was part of the lies to show that Casey was not concerned that her child was missing because she pretended not to know the child was dead.

And in the end, we don't have sufficient DNA evidence.
We don't have a murder weapon.
We don't know how, where, why, or when Caylee died.
There was nothing to tie Casey to Caylee's death other than what appears to us to be reprehensible behavior.

The Prosecution should never have gone for Murder One. They did not prove that Caylee was murdered and they did not prove that Casey did it.

Do I think she did it? Yes I do. But I don't think the prosecution proved it.

Ya know don't you that once upon a time a case of "reasonable" doubt could be proved without a body, without DNA.. We should turn Charlie Manson loose.

Perhaps, but in that case we had eye witnesses who testified and Manson himself took the stand and while not admitting his part in the murders, he didn't deny it either. Without the eye witnesses and had Manson not testified in his own behalf, yes, he probably would have walked.
 

Forum List

Back
Top