As much as you or I followed the trial through Nancy Grace or internet, we weren’t in the courtroom.
It’s certainly possible that had we been part of the jury, as much as it might have pained us, we might have had to find her not guilty because circumstantial evidence is not proof.
OMG, many cases are circumstantial, if not most. LOL. So wrong on the law. I followed the case and read every piece of evidence, all transcripts of interviews and watched all videos from the jail, and listened to the recordings, and then I watched the entire trial start to finish. I even trekked the swamps. I can’t stomach the sensationalism of HLN, so Nancy Grace was a non-starter for me. I caught the show several times and she had her facts wrong when I did and repeated the same darn things over and over.
People been watching tv too much because virtually every murder doesn’t involve a camera shot of the deed.
Good grief.
“It’s certainly possible that had we been part of the jury, as much as it might have pained us, we might have had to find her not guilty because circumstantial evidence is not proof.”
This is two statements you’ve made on here now that are simply mind boggling. Circumstantial evidence is not proof? Are you sure of that? I think maybe you should quit before you embarrass yourself any further.