“When there is only one person on God’s green earth that knows and tells investigators WHEN her own flesh and blood went missing and NOBODY else has contact with or saw a virtually helpless child of 2 and 1/2 then I have NO doubt this woman KILLED her.”
It’s entirely possible she simply panicked and that, mixed with her clear mental illnesses didn’t report her daughter’s death yet also did not kill her. This would not be murder. It is also possible that her father killed her daughter and she helped hide the body or had no idea what happened until much later. If she knew it might be enough to charge her as an accessory to the father’s murder but that wasn’t charged here nor was her father charged with the murder. She was charged on whether she herself killed her daughter and while we all my suspect she did there is room for reasonable doubt as to whether she did based solely on the evidence presented.
“Some people are NOT in need of a Utube video of the act literally being carried out.”
I am not saying you need a video, indeed there is a growing consensus that video evidence is flawed. You also don’t even need DNA evidence (the CSI effect on this case has been disturbing). But you do need more than what was provided in this case; you need witnesses who will tell a story without all being impeached (save her brother who wasn’t all that helpful anyway) and you need at least some physical evidence to show with 95+% certainty that she did it. That wasn’t presented here.
“This lying sack of excrement confessed herself guilty, when she told her brother that her daughter had been missing for 31 days.”
There’s no doubt she was guilty of lying; the charges she was convicted on. But the prosecution failed to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the reason her daughter was missing those days was because it was Casey that killed her. Is it probable or likely? Yes. But is it proven beyond a reasonable doubt? No.
“And this killer (I do not give a ..... what a bunch of mush minded idiots needed to have placed before them as evidence) got a walk because NOBODY caught her in the act.”
Again it wasn’t catching her in the act. It was the lack of good evidence. It was more her family members either lying under oath or hiding the truth that helped it more than anything. That and the lack of direct proof. Again you don’t need eyewitness testimony (it is often flawed anyway) or video or DNA but you do need something more than what the jury received from the prosecution. Circumstantial evidence can, if significant enough, be used to influence the jury but here the evidence presented en toto was insufficient to show her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
IF George had anything to do with the death or the cover-up this lying little itch would have served him up day one and she would have never spent one day in jail. George was according to the video record attempting to get Casey to tell the investigators what happened to the child.