[[Yes, she can get off scott free, if the prosecution can’t produce enoguh evidence to prove what you allege.]]
It was pretty obvious to msot people who watched the trial all the way through enough evidence was presentred for conviction which is why a great majority of those hwo followed it were stunned at the verdict- it was also obvious to those watchign that Cindy lied repeatedly and was coverign up for her daughter- but we’re talking abotu zimmerman, not casey- Even some of the jurors who voted not guilty were doubtful of their own convictions abotu hte case, and cited crap and false reasons as their excuse for voting liek htey did- The prosecution did their job well enough- it was the lamebrained jurors who failed to bring justice
[[Which ought to be good news for Zimmerman, because it’s pretty clear there’s no evidence in the world to pin murder 2 on him.]]
It shoudl be good news, and hopefully will be, however, there is the issue of implied threats from the left and black comunity that if he is not convicted, there wil lbe hell to pay- so who jknows what’s goign to happen in htis case- As a juror, they will be takign hteir lives in their hands sitting on this case because htere is only one verdict that will be allowed by the left- guilty
“It was pretty obvious to msot people who watched the trial all the way through enough evidence was presentred for conviction which is why a great majority of those hwo followed it were stunned at the verdict”
No, I don’t think so. It was more that people had the preconceived notion that the mother was guilty of something, based on someone having to dump the body and the mother not having reported her death for so long. Dispassionate review of the evidence was not part of it. Also, the public was misled by irresponsible commentators who pretended it was a slam dunk case when they should have known better.
Home viewers often have the “someone did it” mindset, which begs for the apparently guilty to pay whether or not there’s enough evidence to justify it. It was enough for Jane Couchpotato that a mother kept mum about a missing child for a month. Lock her up! Except that’s not a crime in itself, though perhaps it should be. It isn’t evidence that she’s guilty of murder, though it’s highly suggestive.
This prejudice overwhelmed the paucity of evidence presented. What did the prosecution have, when we really think about it? A piece of tape with sticker residue that may or may not have come from Casey; the smell of death emanating from Casey’s car, as detected by someone (the grandfather) who may have been an interested party; internet searches that the grandmother most likely perjured herself about. You can try a person for capital crimes without a body, even. This is not that. This does not pass muster. This is not only circumstantial, it is below the reasonable doubt bar.
What if, as the defense theorized, the grandfather covered up an accidental death? How do we know that didn’t happen? It jives with the evidence at least as well as the prosecution’s theory. There’s no overwhelming evidence tying Cassey to the body, nor the body to her car. If the car had a death smell, why didn’t they find decomposition in the trunk? Why couldn’t they find evidence of the chloroform she allegedly searched for? Why was the tape/sticker evidence not the smoking gun the prosecution seemed to pretend it was? Where is the evidence you think made it “pretty obvious to msot people” that Casey was guilty? I don’t think it exists.
It is a phantom. It is a figment of the imagination of people under the “someone did it” mindset, blinded by Casey not reporting her death.
“it was also obvious to those watchign that Cindy lied repeatedly and was coverign up for her daughter”
Yes, but you don’t convict someone because you think someone else lied for them. It casts at least a little doubt that Casey was the one searching for chloroform. And like I said, even with the searches, they don’t have anything to tie Casey to actual chloroform. Knowing she searched the internet is not enough to convict.
“Even some of the jurors who voted not guilty were doubtful of their own convictions abotu hte case, and cited crap and false reasons as their excuse for voting liek htey did”
This is neither here nor there. One man’s “crap and false reasons” is another man’s reasonable doubt. As for them being doubtful, you mean doubtful about their doubt? If that’s the case, they should still acquit. You have to be certain about guilt, not doubtful about doubt.
“As a juror, they will be takign hteir lives in their hands sitting on this case because htere is only one verdict that will be allowed by the left- guilty”
Yes, I agree. It may not be so personally dramatic. By which I mean, I don’t think it’s common for jury members to be targetted after verdicts. Tampered with while a trial’s ongoing, yes, but not afterwards. What they should worry about are possible riots, etc. depending on how they decide. That would weigh heavily on any shoulders.