“but even the prosecutor admitted in an interview that they couldn’t prove it was a murder or an accident.”
That’s a lie...give the quote with a link.
>>That’s a lie...give the quote with a link.<<
That’s a rather serious accusation in a public forum.
State attorney Lawson Lamar said Tuesday after Anthony was found not guilty of killing her 2-year-old daughter that the case was very difficult to prove. Lamar also said the delay in recovering Caylee Anthony’s remains was a considerable disadvantage.
http://www.krem.com/home/Casey-Anthony-acquitted-of-murder-.html
When asked if we will ever know what really happened to Caylee, Ashton said, definitively, “No, we never will. We never will. Because even if Casey got out of jail and wrote a book and said it, I don’t know that any of us would really know if we could believe it or not.”
Ashton also said he does not believe anyone but Casey Anthony will ever know the truth about what happened to Caylee.
Read more: http://www.wesh.com/casey-anthony-extended-coverage/28460647/detail.html#ixzz1RR0HHX4Q
If the prosecutor says after being asked if we will ever know what happened to Caylee “No, we never will” what would suggest the jurors convict on? If he says that there is not “anyone but Casey Anthony” who will “ever know the truth about what happened to Caylee” how in the name of all that is good should we expect a jury to convict on anything. The prosecutor himself couldn’t even say without “reasonable doubt” what happened to Caylee. It’s preposterous to expect a jury to then convict on “something”.
Would you care to apologize for the lie comment?