I was on a murder trial jury. The accused was apprehended with the murder weapon in his possession and an eye withness identified him as the killer.
Now that is what I call real evidence.
All the evidence here is circumstancial and I could buy it if we knew positively how the baby died.
Whatever the jury finds, I will support them as I know what a huge job it is but just saying how I would feel about finding murder one.
Are you aware that the fingerprints on that evidence would be circumstantial? As is DNA. Lots of things that we consider proof are included in the list of circumstantial evidence.
“I was on a murder trial jury. The accused was apprehended with the murder weapon in his possession and an eye withness identified him as the killer.”
Yes, but everything is not wrapped up in a neat little package in every case. Reality is that justice is served by looking at the evidence and motivations to commit crimes. This case is loaded with both circumstantial evidence and direct evidence such as searching for chloroform and buying duct tape and the evidence of a dead body with duct tape on it. The lies by Casey are consistent and also are evidence of her vacillation on important points and time scenarios.
Her defense is one of shifting sands with nothing taking root until the desperation move of blaming her step father and mother.