So we find people guilty based on how we “feel” instead of the letter of the law?
Wow.
I suppose you are cool with SCOTUS using their “feelings” when applying the constitution in trials also???
There was certainly more than “feel” in this trial. To deny that, is to deny reality.There were facts and evidence even without a fingerprint or some DNA.
If there was a fingerprint or DNA, what would it prove, really? Casey was the mother, her chit belonged there—Cindy and George, too.
There was NONE on the tape because it had rotted, water-logged etc. Some DNA showed up, shed from the investigatorsmahoohas, but that DNA did NOT cover or hide any other DNA.
The state should have brought on Jesse Grund—that shower at his place etc. He had MUCH to tell...
So do you believe justice was served today? Do you believe that the prosecution evidence was only 'feeling' based? Really? You watched this trial and couldn't connect the dots? You obviously either did not watch most of this trial or lack basic comprehensive skills. Do you feel comfortable about the murderer of a tiny child being let off because the state didn't have an absolutely 'perfect' case? Oh, that's right....she isn't a murderer because Ashton didn't present a video of the crime wrapped up in a bow to this drooling group of jurors. You and people of like mind over this trial are pathetic. You would have felt right at home deliberating with these dunces.
Where did you get that idea? from Jose Baez. Exactly...
Where did you get your information, pundits on television?
Some of us actually read the EVIDENCE, obviously, you didn't.