This trial’s biggest indictment is on our assanine “news entertainment”. I was a Prosecutor for 25 years and I can tel you that what you see on the news shows, even those hosted by attorneys, is almost NOTHING like what is going on in the courtroom.
Many people are railing against the jury because they have convicted the Defendant based on a few news highlights plus commentary by people who are not at all interested in informing, but sensationalizing.
She may be guilty. But it’s up to the State to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Even based on what I saw I was not the least bit surprised by the verdict. Sometimes as a Prosecutor you know you have to prosecute (usually based upon the heinous nature of the crime) but you just don’t have, and can’t get, the evidence that will convict.
The system worked, and that is a good thing.
Thank You.
Thank you for that.
The Defendant made no effort to find her "missing" daughter and made materially false statements to invertigators during their attempts to find her. Those statements were not all harmless fabrications, like her claim to have worked somewhere she did not. Several impinged materially on the question of her guilt, and they were not lies that would be told by an innocent person.
OJ 2.0 huh? Did the system work in 1995 when OJ walked free? Can you admit some jurors and even complete juries are idiots? Or do you need a preponderance of evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt that all 12 are morons to come to that conclusion on your own?
No, you are wrong. Some of us read the evidence and some of you obviously didn't. That is the difference. We didn't watch a bunch of news readers. We actually followed the evidence.
” This trial’s biggest indictment is on our assanine “news entertainment”. I was a Prosecutor for 25 years and I can tel you that what you see on the news shows, even those hosted by attorneys, is almost NOTHING like what is going on in the courtroom.”
So true.
I also recall the judge commenting on the evidence that was submitted and its relevancy to the case.
To me he was saying. “ Pay close attention, because that’s the key to this case. Not the hype etc.”
In other words Who, What, When, Where and Why were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Sad part is we will not know who killed Caylee, or how this person or family played a role in the act or true knowledge of what happened.
“She may be guilty. But it’s up to the State to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Even based on what I saw I was not the least bit surprised by the verdict. Sometimes as a Prosecutor you know you have to prosecute (usually based upon the heinous nature of the crime) but you just don’t have, and can’t get, the evidence that will convict.”
I disagree with you. The Brian Stowe case in L.A. Is in that boat. The “person of interest” they have in custody does not have enough evidence for them to even charge him yet. That’s an example where the state is in a bad place.
But the circumstantial evidence against Casey is like a giant arrow, and nothing points to anyone else.