I'd like to know why we place morons on juries who ask "The prosecution couldn't answer the big question, how did Caylee die?" without even comprehending that, as a result of the Defendant's well-documented lies and delays, all the available DNA, as well as the corpse itself, deteriorated. I'd also like to know what sort of morons don't know the difference between "reasonable doubt" and ANY doubt. Maybe little green men snatched up Caylee. Maybe the shoe elves put her in that field. But is that doubt REASONABLE?
I am sickened.
it really is disheartening to realize these 12 couldn’t comprehend what constitutes beyond reasonable doubt, and that it doesn’t mean NO conceivable doubt of any kind and absolute certainty as to what occurred.
these 12 found the case not proven. that doesn’t mean 12 diff jurors, perhaps not as anti-authoritarian, might not have found differently. we may have to accept the jury verdict, but that doesn’t require us to believe it was the right one.
In 1901, President McKinley was shot on September 6 and died on September 14, 1901.
McKinley’s assassin was tried, convicted and executed in just a little over 6 weeks from September 14.
Today it takes 3 years just to bring an obviously guilty mother to trial for the murder of her daughter. If the mother had been found guilty and sentenced to death, it would have taken another 20 to 30 years to carry out the sentence if in fact it was ever carried out.
What happened over the last 110 years to make our justice system so dysfunctional? Who did this to us?