I was trying to come up with a good analogy for my kids last night. Here is what I came up with:
You walk into a room and there are three people standing there: Mom, Dad, and Daughter. They tell you that their friend is missing, and has been for a while. They find the dead body three doors down, but its been so long they cannot tell anything other than he is dead.
Who do you charge? Who killed the person? How did they kill them? When did they kill them. Did anyone see it? Is there any physical evidence linking any single person to the killing? Sure there is plenty of circumstantial evidence, but it could be applied to any of the three people. And only one person was on trial.
You know the guy is dead. You are pretty sure one of them did it—but which one, when, and how?
What you know and what you can prove are two things.
I think EVERYONE “feels” that she did something, and that Mom and Dad were complicit. But being able to prove is it impossible.
I appreciate the frustration of everyone here, and I would not want her living next door to me....but I cannot see another way out of the case.
Nice try but you left out a crap load of evidence ...sorry.
I would certainly look at the last person that was with her, in this case, Casey is the last person and was responsible for the care of her daughter.
And she failed to report her missing.
Guilty right there.
My small children have gotten out of my eyesight and I went into full panic mode.
Oh, and then partying every night.
When the daughter created lie after lie and states the child is with a nonexistent nanny and does not show any concern about the whereabouts, you know who definitely is involved. There is no other possible explanation. She should be guilty of manslaughter at the minimum. In the multiple video and audio evidence it is clear that two of the three showed concern about the whereabouts of the child.
Your stupid analogy sucks, you obviously didn't watch the trial. My advice, STFU.
Why not go back and amend your hypothetical and THEN ask them who they think is most likely to know something about their missing friend? I suspect you will get a very different answer.
BTW, are you a defense attorney?
Here’s a better analogy:
You log on to a conservative website to commiserate with other clear thinking individuals about the outrageous miscarriage of justice in a conniving baby killer case supported by lots of evidence.
Some moron ignores all of the facts and further fills his children’s heads with swill, treating them as though they don’t have the capacity to digest the evidence against the defendant. Thats probably just as well because he probably is not familiar with all the evidence. That moron then posts on that website, treating the posters to the same story his own children probably accepted at face value. He is then surprised on being called a moron when he thought he was quite the superior thinker and that everyon else was just reacting emotionally.
One poster is particularly outraged at his nonsense, having watched almost the entire trial as a result of being bedridden because of an attack on Memorial day by criminals.
Keep in mind the jurors wanted DIRECT evidence - which is basically either photos, video or eye witness testimony.
They had direct evidence of a dead child through photos. They had direct evidence of a hair in the trunk with banding proving death. Anyone could infer from the photos and the hair that a dead Caylee was in that trunk.
Casey was seen on video (again direct evidence) with the boyfriend by 8pm on june 16 - no Caylee. Even if she wasn't dead yet, they could have inferred she had been left alone somewhere - a 2 year old - in the car? In the woods alive? No reason at all to suspect she was with anyone else. Infer she is already dead because she is never seen again.
The jury really didn't even think at all on this one - made up their minds before it was even over.