So what you’re saying is that if a body can be hidden well enough that by the time it’s found, cause and time of death cannot be determined, then you’d be unwilling to convict anyone of killing the deceased despite a plethora of other evidence (including behavior) that the accused committed the crime? Seriously?
If a dead child is thrown in the woods and it decays into a skeleton is it still a murder?
I'd love to ask Scott Peterson if he followed the trial on DEATH ROW.
I have no doubt in my mind that Casey killed Caylee, whether on purpose, in a rage, by neglect, on drugs, drunk or otherwise.
But the evidence must be followed and the evidence must be presented in a court of law. And that evidence must prove beyond a reasonable doubt not just that Caylee died, not just that her death was a result of an action of another, but that Casey herself was directly responsible for Caylee’s death.
We “know” she was, but the evidence must “prove” she was. The prosecutor overreached, and in doing so he rolled the dice that the jury would side with him and fill in the blanks without him providing evidence.
It was a rickety bridge he constructed and the jury felt that it didn’t hold up when he tried to drive his charges across.