So what is the difference between this case and OJ’s case? Both have evidence supporting the crime - and actually, based on what I have read, I think there is more evidence linking casey to this crime than there was to OJ. You seem to accept that oj was guilty, why defend this pos? I understand the system - I’m not disputing that - I’m saying we can already know she is guilty, just as we did with OJ - so it won’t matter to me what some jury decides.
We can all know she’s guilty?
What?
Remember the Elizabeth Smart case?
Remember JonBenet Ramsey?
Did you have an opinion then?
Yikes! You scare me!!!!!
(btw, I never once defended this Florida mother)